wash 'ton, dc. - ericschematic representation of how the specification document, general...

ED 254 154

TITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCY

PUB DATECONTRACTNOTE

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 018 119

Assessment of Alternative Student Aid DeliverySystems: Analytic Agenda for the Current System.Advanced Technology, Inc., Reston, VA.Office of Student Financial Assistance (ED),Wash 'ton, DC.Mar300-by 0952242p.; For related documents, see HE 01S 112-135 andHE 018 37-140.Reports - Descriptive (141)

ME01/PC10 P1113 Postage.*Delivery Systems; Eligibility; *Evaluation Methods;*Federal Aid; Financial Aid Applicants; FinancialSupport; Grants; Higher Education; InformationSources; Need Analysis (Student Financial Aid);*Program Evaluation; Resource Allocation; *StudentFinancial Aid; Student Loan Programs*Guaranteed Student Loan Program; *Pell GrantProgram

ABSTRACTA guide for analyzing the effects of the current

student aid delivery system and for estimating the effects of systemalternatives is presented. Attention is directed to measures, datasources, and analysis methods needed to evaluate the effects of eachdelivery system activity on the various participants (e.g., lenders,financial aid applicants; government, colleges). Because of a lack ofdata on the effects of the system at the activity level, baselineeffects at an aggregate level were estimated and case study data wereanalyzed. For the Pell Grant program, Guaranteed Student Loanprogram, and campus-based aid, a chart lists activities that are partof the following delivery subsystems: pre-application, rpplication,student eligibility determination, student benefit calculation, funddisbursement, and account reconciliation. Extensive tables for eachof the three aid programs outline for each activity effects (e.g.,administrative costs), measures, data sources, and analysis measures.Information on the methodology for evaluating the effects of thedelivery system is included. Appended materials include a descriptionof the data sources and a glossary, (SW)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVESTUDENT AID DELIVERY SYSTEMS:

ANALYTIC AGENDA FOR THE CURRENT SYSTEM

Prepared for

Credit Management Task ForceU.S. Department of Edu-ation

and

Division of Quality AssuranceOffice of Student Financial Assistance444

U.S. Department of Education

Contract No. 300-80-0952

by

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, INC.12001 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, Virginia 22091

March 1983

U.B. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCADONNATIONAL INSTITUTE Of EDUCATION

EOUC alDONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCEN1ER (ERICI

e document has been repfoctuce0 asreserved from the person or Orilan'tatgonvo(trnatog o

Mrnor cri409es have been nude 10 ooprovereproduc non quality

F'ocnts of wee, or opmofIs. Sated ,0 the chKrrrent do not oetessartiv represent OffKLeit NIEi.)o511On Ur pOlrv

I

PREFACE

DRAFT

The Office of Student Financial Assistance (OSFA) of the Department ofEducation (ED) has contracted with Advanced Technology, Inc. of McLean, Virginia,and its subcontractor, Westat, Inc. of Rockville, Maryland, to conduct a three-yearquality control project (Contract No. 300-80-0952). The project focuses on the PellGrant Program, the second largest of the studeit aid programs. The objective ofStage Two, Part Three, is to assess the effects of delivery system alternativesidentified by OSFA and the ED Credit Management Task Force. The reportscompleted to date under Stage Two, Part Three, are:

"Evaluation of Alternative Student Aid Delivery Systems: An OrganizationalStrategy," October 15, 1982

"Assessment of Alternative Student Aid Delivery Systems: A Context Paper,"November 29, 1982

'Delivery System Assessment Task: Briefing for the Credit Management TaskForce," November 29, 1982

"Assessment of Alternative Student Aid Delivery Systems: The Preliminary Model,"December 1982

"Assessment of Alternative Student Aid Delivery Systems: Analysio Plan," January1983

"Delivery System Assessment Task: Technical Advisory Panel Briefing," January 20,1983

"Assessment of Alternative Student Aid Delivery Systems: Preliminary Specifica-tion of the Current System with Program Antecedents," January 1983

"Assessment of Alternative Student Aid Delivery Systems: The General AssessmentModel," March 1983

"Assessment of Alternative Student Aid Delivery Systems: Analytic Agenda for theCurrent System," March 1983

3

DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I: BACKGROUND I -I

SECTION U: METHODOLOGY 2-1

Specification of Effects 2-1Definition of Measures 2-1Identification of Potential Data Sources 2 -2

Description of Possible Analysis Methods 2 -2

SECTION III: USE OF THE ANALYTIC AGENDATO ESTIMATE BASELINE EFFECTS 3-1

SECTION IV: POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ANALYSES 4-1

Institution Administrative Costs 4 -I

Miscalculation/Error 4 -1

Distribution of Aid 4-3Fund Control 4-3Creation of Data Base for Simulations 4-4

SECTION V: ANALYTIC AGENDA 5-- I

APPENDIX A: TABLE OF DELIVERY SYSTEM ACTIVITIES A-1

APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTION OF DATA SOURCES B- I

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY C- I

4ii

LIST OF FIGURES

DRAFT

Figure 1-1: SCHEMATIC PRESENTATION OF STEPS REQUIREDTO DEVELOP THE ANALYTIC MODEL 1-4

5

iii

DRAFT

SECTION 1

BACKGROUND

The analytic agenda defines measures, identifies potential data sources, anddescribes possible analysis methods for the activities and effects of the currentstudent aid delivery system. It follows logically from the preliminary specification("Assessment of Alternative Student Aid Delivery Systems: Preliminary Specifi-cation of the Current System") and the general assessment model ("Assessment ofAlternative Student Aid Delivery Systems: The General Assessment Model") andprovides a guide for analyzing the effects of the current delivery system. Takentogether, the preliminary specification, general assessment model, and analyticagenda form the framework for evaluating alternative student aid delivery systems.

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is currently considering alternatives tothe present system for delivering student financial aid. To assist in this procedure,the Delivery System Assessment Task has been designed to develop an analyticmodel capable of evaluating the effects of the current delivery system and to assessthe likely differential effects of proposed alternative delivery systems. As stated in"Assessment of Alternative Student Aid Delivery Systems: The Preliminary Model,"

the current delivery system is the baseline against which any alternative must becompared, and therefore, any realistic attempt to develop a model to assessalternative delivery systems must be predicated on a thorough evaluation of thedelivery system as it presently exists.

Eight steps were identified as being required for the evaluation of the currentsystem, which serves as the basis for the analytic model to assess alternativedelivery systems. These sterns are:

Step 1: Specify the current delivery system in the form of input-process-output (IPO) chains.

Step 2: Develop independently a detailed list of program features foreach program.

Step 3: Determine which program features influence each deliverysystem activity.

DR AFT

Step 4: Determine the intervening variables that are relevant to eachdelivery system activity.

Step 5: Determine which effects are influenced by each deliverysystem activity.

Step 6: Develop measures for each effect at each delivery systemactivity.

Step 7: Find existing da... 3 or develop new data sources for eachmeasure.

Step 3: Develop methods of analysis for each effect at each activitystep.

An initial attempt at accomplishing the first three steps in the process wascontained in "Assessment if Alternative Student Aid Delivery Systems: PreliminarySpecification of the Current System with Program Antecedents." This document

developed a detailed specification of the current delivery system. It was divided

into three components, one each for the Pell, Campus-Based, and GuaranteedStudent Loan (GSL) programs. Each of the three delivery system components wasdivided into six common subsystems (pre-application, student application, studenteligibility determination, student benefit calculation, funds disbursement, andaccount reconciliation). The specification also identified the activities taking place

within each program subsystem. The activities differed for each of the programs.For each activity, the program features and inputs, processes, and outputs relatingto this activity were then described as accurately as possible given readily available

documentation.

The specification report represented a preliminary attempt to describe, indetail, the steps and processes in the current delivery system. Because the level ofdetail included in the specification went beyond the documentation readily

available, the specification might have contained certain inaccuracies. To correct

these deficiencies, interviews are currently being conducted with ED personnel andthe information obtained will be used to refine the specification. While this may

entail changing certain program features or inputs, processes, and outputsassociated with the activities, the basic list of activities is not likely to changesubstantially. The specification document was used as the basis for development of

DRAFT.

the analytic model without fear that later refinements in the specification willnecessitate major revisions in future work.

The identification of intervening variables and effects for each deliverysystem activity (steps four and five in the process of developing the analytic model)is contained in the report, "Assessment of Alternative Student Aid DeliverySystems: The General Assessment Model." For each activity listed in thespecification document, a determination of the effects by delivery system partici-pant (e.g., applicant/family, lender, institution, etc.) of that activity was

accomplished. Factors outside Federal control (intervening variables) whilth impactthese effects were also listed. By linking effects and intervening variables withactivities, the general assessment model provides the methodology for identifyingthe impact of both the current and alternative delivery systems on the majorparticipants in the delivery system.

The analytic agenda represents the completion of the last three steps (stepssix, seven, and eight) in the process necessary to develop the analytic model. Thesesteps, constituting what is being called the analytic agenda for the current system,define measures, list possible data sources, and describe potential analysis methodsnecessary for evaluating the effects of each delivery system activity on the variousparticipants as identified in the general assessment model. Figure 1-1 is aschematic representation of how the specification document, general assessmentmodel, and analytic agenda in combination provide a framework for analyzing theeffects of the current delivery system and estimating the likely effects of systemchanges.

The analytic agenda has two major uses. The first is to provide a detailedguide for the development of baseline estimates of the effects, of the currerktdelivery system. Using the measures, data sources, and analysis methods identifiedin the analytic agenda as a guide, it is possible to estimate the major effects of thedelivery system and related delivery system activities.. The analytic agendaproposes quantitative measures whenever sufficient data is available. Qualitativemeasures are suggested when data cannot be obtained to make a quantitativeestimation.

SPECIFICATION DOCUMENT

PROGRAMFEATURES SUBSYSTEM STEP

Student mustapply to insti-tution for pro-gram eligibility

Student Monprovide dnarelevant toColic:Ufa i00 ofneed

[Etc.

HYPOTHETICAL PROGRAM

STUDENT APPLICATION SUBSYSTEM

ACTIVITYs SUBMISSION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Studentpicks upformfromschool

Student Studentfills submitsout completedform form to

school

GENERALASSESSMENT MODEL

INTERVENINGVARIABLES EFFECTS

Student abilityto understandinstructions

Student abilityto obtainrelevantinformation

1_Etc.

AppliciuniFamily:ApplicationTime

--->

Applicant/Family;Distribu-tion of Aid

FIGURE 14

DRAFT

ANALYTIC AGENDAFOR THE CURRENT SYSTEM

DATASOURCESMEASURES

Elapsed timebetween receiptof financialstatement andsubmission

Variance inaid receivedamong studentsin similarcircumstances

/6-...-..-+.!..

SCHEMATIC PRESENTATION OF STEPS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP THE ANALYTIC MODEL

Timestudies,etc.

-->

SISFAPstudyetc.

1ANALYSISMETHODS

Develop estima-tions from timestudies

Categorizestudents bysimilarity ofcircumstancesand compareaid packages

10

DRAFT

The second purpose of the analytic agenda is to identify methods forestimating the differential effects of delivery system alternatives. Ideally, thistype of analysis would wait until the specification of possible alternative deliverysystems had been completed; however, given the timeframe governing this project,''that was not possible. Therefore, the analytic agenda, whenever feasible, includesmethods fir estimating the marginal effect of changing delivery system activities.Thus, if a proposal for an alternative delivery system requires changing a givenfeature of the current delivery system, the analytic agenda can be used to identifyanalyses that can be used to estimate the differential effects of the proposedchange.

In summary, the purpose of the analytic agenda is to provide a detailed guidefor analyzing the effects of the current student delivery system and to estimate theeffects of delivery system alternatives. The remainder of the report describes theanalytic agenda. Section 2 details the methodology used in deriving the analyticagenda. Section 3 explains how the agenda will be used to determine baselineeffects of the current system. Section 4 lists possible options for carrying out moredetailed analyses of delivery system effects. Section 5 presents the analyticagenda.

DRAFT

SECTION 2

METHODOLOGY

The production of the analytic agenda required making a cumber of subjectivejudgments concerning various aspects of the document. To the extent possible,decision rules were developed to assist In making those determinations. This section

presents the rules and methods used to develop the analytic agenda.

Specification of Effects

The logic used to identify effects for the analytic agenda differs from that used todevelop the general model. The analytic agenda developed a strategy for evaluatingthe effects of the deliveiy system as it currently exists. This is a narrower scopethan the general assessment model, which provides a framework for analyzing theeffects of any delivery system that might be proposed, including the current system.Because of the static nature of the analytic agenda, only effects of the deliverysystem--not program effect. are considered. Mother feature of the logic used tospecify effects for the analytic agenda was ',hat measures were defined first, thenthe effects were identified. This methodology was used to focus the analytic agendaon potentially quantifiable effects of the delivery system. By working backward

from measures to effects, the analytic agenda is much more limited in its treatmentof effects than is the general assessment model. As a result, the number of effectsfor a given activity is generally less for the analytic agenda than for the generalmodel.

Definition of Measures

Although measures were used to aid in the specification of effects, and insome sense should be listed before effects, conceptually the definition of measuresfollows fr r he identification of effects.'. This is the order, in which they arepresent~ .. analytic agenda. To the extent possible, all measures were definedin a man ,. at made them potentially quantifiable. Whether they are in factquantifiable will depend on the availability of data and the time constraintsgoverning the analysis.

122-1

DRAFT

The attemct io develop quantifiable measures meant that measures for the

more subjective effects are usually discrete in nature. Measures for certainty offunds, distribution of aid, availability of program information, and other of the lesstangible effects :re usually discrete variables such as time, award amounts, etc.While this approach may have ignored certain qualitatitive aspects of these effects,the attempt to quantify effects where posse,: Le was considered a high priority.

Another distinctive aspect of the methodology is that the measures identifiedusually pertained to one activity. Many of the effects in the analytic agenda crossindividual activities. For example, many activities contribute to turnaround time.In these cases, discrete measures were defined for each activity. Thus, turnaround

time can be measured separately at the student application, student eligibilitydetermination, student award calculation, and disbursement to student activities.However IL .vill also be possible to develop an overall estimate of turnilround timeand to ide: ";;A:y the delivery system activities that influence this effect.

Identification of Potential Data Sources

After the measures were defined for each effect, potential data sources forobtaining these measures were identified. A comprehensive approach was taken inthe identification of potential data sources; i.e., if a data source seemed evenmarginally related to a given measure, it was still listed in the analytic agenda toensure that no data source was overlooked. Where possible, both quantitative(reports, studies) and qualitative (interviews, case studies) data sources wereidentified although, in many instances, only one type of data will be applicable tothe analysis. Therefore, in the actual analysis of measures, many of the datasources listed may not be used. In addition, a constant search will be made toidentify new data sources; adding data sources to the list presented in the analytic

agenda- Appendix B presents a list of the data sources identified in the analyticagenda with a brief explanation provided for each source.

Description of Possible Analysis Methods

The final process in developing the analytic agenda consisted of describingpossible analysis methods that might be used to generate the relevant measures

132-2

DRAFT

required for the analytic model. A problem in formulating analysis methods formeasuring effects of the delivery system is that the delivery system is an iniegralpart of student financial aid, but it is not usually considered a major factorinfluencing the behavior of delivery system participants. Generally, programeffects have a greater impact than delivery system effects on delivery systemparticipants. Therefore, if program effects are held constant, it becomes extremelydifficult to obtain direct measures of delivery system effects.

The difficulty inherent in measuring delivery system effects influenced thenature of the analysis methods proposed in the analytic agenda. For each effectlisted, an attempt was made to identify the best method for analyzing this effectgiven the available data. In many instances, this meant relying on proxies for theeffect under consideration or using data from a limited number of case studies.While this approach cannot be used to provide accurate measures of effects andtherefore would not be appropriate in a research endeavor, it can provide orders ofmagnitude for effects which are sufficient, given the policy oriented nature of theDelivery System Assessment Task. Based on this, it will not be appropriate to applystrict research standards to the analysis methods presented in the analytic agenda.

The most important criterion used to determine if an analysis method wasappropriate was whether it could provide a better estimate of an effect than merelyguessing. For example, case studies were often cited as an analysis method with therealization that making generalizations from three or four site visits might beinappropriate if an accurate quantitative estimate of the effect under considerationwas required. If this type of precision was required, a full-scale study of the effectwould be needed; that is, of course, beyond the scope of this task. However, the

case studies can provide data on the order of magnitude and direction of the effect.Since this is better than guessing, case studies were often cited as appropriatemethods of analysis.

As stated in Section 1, the purpose of the analytic agenda was twofold: first,to provide a guide for estimating baseline effects of the current delivery system,and then to identify where possible, differential effects that could be measuredusing available data. Analysis methods designed to accomplish both of thesepurposes were specified in the analytic agenda. For each effect, a method or

142-3

DRAFT

methods of analysis for accomplishing the estimate of baseline effects were listed;but 4nly in certain cases were analysis methods for assessing differential effectsidentified. Therefore, for some effects, analysis methods for both estimatingbaseline effects of the current system and assessing differential effects were listed,while for other effects, only analysis methods relating to baseline effects could beidentified.

Additionally, because the exact nature of the data that would be available wasnot known at the time that the analytic agenda was written, the description ofanalysis methods tended to be general in nature. Also, time constraints may causechanges and/or deletions in the analysis methods identified. This means that theanalysis methods in the analytic agenda can only be used as a general guide and notall methods listed in the report will be carried out in the manner specified.

15

2-4

DRAFT

SECTION 3

USE OF THE ANALYTIC AGENDATO ESTIMATE BASELINE EFFECTS

One of the major purposes of the analytic agenda is to provide a frameworkfor developing estimates of the baseline effects of the current delivery system.This section describes how the framework provided by the analytic agenda will beused to determine these baseline effects. It obviously will not be possible to developmeasures for all effects for all activities. Therefore, it is necessary to focus theanalysis on the most important questions.

To facilitate the estimation of baseline effects, the analytic agenda wasdivided according to types of data sources required for the analysis. Three divisionswere made, with an analyst placed in charge of each division. The three divisionswere:

Interviews with ED personnel and review of Federal documents;

Case studies and data from processors;

Previous studies and reports.

By dividing the analytic agenda according to data source, each analyst willhave to become familiar with a subset of the total data sources being used in theanalysis. This will increase each analyst's efficiency in working with the data bylearning what can and cannot be obtained from the data bases on which eachconcentrates. If the work were divided according to activity, then each analystwould have to become familiar will all relevant data bases; this would result in aduplication of effort and a loss of time.

As stated in Section 1, the focus of the study on delivery system effects madeit difficult to obtain direct measures of effects. In addition, the specification ofeffects at the activity level means that data are harder to obtain and increases thedifficulty of estimating baseline effects. These problems shaped the method forestimating baseline effects in several ways which are documented in followingparagraphs.

163-1

DRAFT

To overcome the lack of data available on effects at the activity level, it isnecessary to estimate baseline effects at an aggregate level. The more aggregatethe level at which activities are estimated, the greater the amount of data thatshould be available. For example, Federal budget information may be available at

the division level but not for activities within a division. In this case, administrativecosts for the Federal government rn".ght be measured at the subsystem level ratherthan the activity level.

Mother technique--case study analysiswill be used to overcome the generallack of data available on delivery system effects and the difficulty of obtaining anydata at the activity level about effects. As stated previously, the problem with casestudies is that results cannot easily be generalized. On the other hand, case studiespresent an opportunity to obtain specific information not available from othersources. Therefore, a trade-off exists between the ability to generalize results fromlarger scale studies and program-wide information and the opportunity to deriveanswers to specific questions from case studies. To obtain the advantages inherentin both data source types, where possible estimates of general effects will be madeusing larger data bases, case studies will be used to divide these general effects into

activities. For example, institutional administrative costs can be estimated for arepresentative sample of schools from SISFAP at a general level. Case studies couldthen be used to estimate what percent of administrative costs are attributable tospecific activities, and the estimates combined to provide a figure for totaladministrative costs by activity.

The format for presenting baseline effects will take into account the potentialusefulness of the results and the ambiguities of the data. In particular, thediscussion of each effect will consider:

The description of the effect;

Estimation of the effect using the best available data sources;

Detailed analysis of activities that contribute directly to this effect.

To ensure completion of the estimates of baseline effects for the currentdelivery system, given the difficulty of this task and the time available, firstpriority will go to generating descriptive measures of the effects from easily

3-2 17

DRAFT

accessible data. If time permits, more sophisticated analyses may be undertaken onlimited topics concerning delivery system effects. These topics are discussed in

Section 4.

DRAFT

SECTION 4

POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

A secondary purpose of the analytic agenda is to identify areas whe

differential effects of alternative delivery systems might be estimated using data

the current delivery system. This section provides descriptions of several possib

analyses that might be pursued toward this end. Additionally, It provides estima

of baseline effects of the current delivery system which require more

analysis than descriptive measures. Because of the limited time available to

complete this task, not all additional analyses identified can be undertak

Therefore, priorities must be set for those analyses to be conducted first; any inpu

that can be offered in setting these priorities will be appreciated.

Institution Administrative Costs

Beyond estimating the current delivery system's baseline effects on adminis-

trative costs for institutions, several more detailed analyses relating to Institution

administrative costs are possible. Using data from the SISFAP institution question-

naire, an equation can be estimated to relate administrative cost as the dependent

variable to institution characteristics (size, type, etc.), procedures (whether the

school conducts its own validation, etc.), and facilities (manual or computer, etc.) as

the explanatory variables. From this equation, It will be possible to determine

which variables have the strongest Impact upon Institution administrative costs; the

frequency of these variables occurring in the population can also be estimated from

SISFAP. Using this data, when an alternative delivery system is assessed, the

variables which relate most strongly to the impact of the alternative on institution

administrative costs can be identified; an estimate can then be made of the

magnitude of the differential effect and which types of schools will be most

affected.

Miscalculation/Error

While baseline estimates of miscalculation/error are obtainable from the

Quality Control study for the Pell program, no similar study ias been made about

4-1 19

DRAFT

error in the Campus-Based and GSL programs. One method for making suchestimates is to utilize QC data to simulate errors in the GSL and Campus-Basedprograms. Estimates made in this manner are not meant to provide the accuracy ofa full-scale study, but can yield orders of magnitude.

A major problem with estimating student error in the Campus-Based and GSLprograms is that there is no universal application form for these programs.However, certain common elements must be Included in each application form; thus,it is possible to develop a "typical" application for simulation purposes. Using QCstudy information on errors an various application items (income, assets, etc.),student error estimates can be generated by simulating the impact of the applica-tion item errors on these "typical" applications. Two methods are possible forobtaining a data base to use in the simulations. The first Is to use those students inthe QC study who also received Campus-Based aid or a GSL. This sample may bebiased to the extent that Pell recipients differ from Campus-Based aid and GSLrecipients. A second method for developing adata base for simulations is to imputethe QC error information to the SISFAP student survey. While this sample will bemo-e representative of the relevant recipient populations, the Imputations necessary

to create the data base will cause inaccuracies. The choice of technique for usedepends on the time available for the anilysis, the relative trade-offs involved, etc.

To the extent that the same" rules apply for determining categorical eligibilityfor GSL and Campus-Based programs as well as for the Pell program, QC data againcan be used, in this case to estimate miscalculation/error in the eligibilitydetermination process for the Campus-Based and GSL programs. Using QC studyinformation on the magnitude and incidence of categorical eligibility errors, thosesame types of errors can be projected for the GSL and Campus-Based programs. As

with the estimate of student error, two options exist for creating a data base uponwhich to make the necessary simulations.

In addition to simulating errors in the GSL and Campus-Based programs, QC

data can be used to estimate the impact of the application form upon student error.An equation can be estimated, with student error as the dependent variable andstudent perceived problems with the application form, and student demographicinformation as explanatory variables. If student perceived problems with the

4-2 20

DRAFT

application form is not a significant predictor of student error (i.e., if students whoindicated having trouble completing the application did not have significantly highererror rates than other students), then a changed application probably will not affectstudent error rates. The opposite would be true where student perceived problemson the application is a significant predictor of student error. This type of analysiscould, therefore, be very useful in assessing the effects of alternative deliverysystems that propose changing the relevant applications.

Distribution of Aid

Descriptive measures of the current delivery systems' effects on distributionof aid can be generated easily from program statistics. The program statisticsdetail how much aid is distributed and provide some indication of types of studentswho receive the aid. However, additional and greater detailed analysis could beuseful for comparing the distribution of aid among students and institutions.

Using SISFAP data on institutions' packaging philosophies, it will be possible todetermine the distribution of aid within institutions. The extent to which institu-tions package according to need, academic ability, etc. can be estimated andpredictions generated for the frequency of each type of philosophy in the population.In addition, SISFAP data can be used to determine the distribution of aid amonginstitutions. Students can be divided according to like characteristics and differ-ences in remaining need, type, and amount of aid received, etc., and can bedetermined both within and among institutions. Finally, the packaging philosophiesdeveloped for ISFAM can be used to simulate changes in the distribution of aidcaused by proposed alternative delivery systems.

Fund Control

Given the less Federal nature of the Campus-Based and GSL programs, it isc.ifficult to obtain the information needed for an in-depth analysis of fund control in

these programs. As part of the QC project, tasks designed to aid the fund controlcapabilities for both programs were completed; other tasks in this area arecontinuing. These studies will be used as background for the Delivery Assessment

21

DRAFT

Task. The greater Federal role in the Pell program means that data are available to

carry out more detailed analysis of fund control in the Pell program.

A major issue in fund control in the Pell program is the timing and amount of

authorizations to institutions. Since institutions require funds prior to their

distribution to students, authorizations to institutions must be made based onestimates of schools' funding needs. If the estimate is too low, then schools will fall

short of funds; if the estimate is too high, then the government is needlesslyborrowing money. Using past Pell disbursement data, the authorization from theprior progress report can be subtracted from not expenditures as reported on thecurrent progress report. If the result is positive, then the schools were overfunded;

if it is negative, then the schools were underfunded. This figure can be broken down

to determine if the probability of over- or underfunding varies by type of institution.

Creation of Data Base for Simulations

Ideally, the analysis of alternative delivery systems' effects should wait untilthe alternative under consideration is completely specified. Unfortunately, the

timeframe of this project makes this ideal impossible. However, one method for

enhancing the analysis of effects of alternative delivery systems would be to puttogether a data base capable of simulating as many effects as possible for aproposed alternative delii,ery system. The basic component of the data base wouldbe the SISFAP student questionnaire since this is the only representative sample of

students in postsecondary institutions available for use. This sample would be

reweighted to account for changes in the major financial aid programs since thesample was collected. SISFAP also contains data on administrative costs, packaging

philosophies, etc. for inclusion in the data base. Linking the SISFAP sample to theFISAP tape and Pell disbursement data (this link has already been made as part ofdevelopment for ISFAM) will provide information on Campus-Based and Pell funding

levels. In addition, error data from the QC study, administrative costs data fromthe National Commission study, etc. could also be imputed onto the central database. When complete, this data base would provide the ability to analyze several(but certainly not all) effects of a proposed alternative delivery system from onedata source, an approach which would allow more detailed analysis of alternativedelivery systems within the project's timeframe.

224-4

DRAFT

SECTION 5

ANALYTIC AGENDA

This section presents the charts that make up the analytic agenda. By

identifying measures, data sources, and analysis methods for each effect at theactivity level, the analytic agenda provides a detailed guide for the development ofbaseline estimates of the effects of the current delivery system. It also identifiespotential areas where differential effects of the delivery system can be estimatedusing available data.

To aid in the interpretation of the charts, three appendices have been includedin the report. Appendix A is a list of delivery system activities used in the analyticagenda. Appendix B briefly describes the data sources listed in the report.Appendix C is a glossary for the acronyms used in the charts.

DRAFT

PELL GRANT COMPONENT

EFFECTS


1. PRE-APPLICATION SUBSYSTEM

1.1 Budget Forecasting Activity

MEASURES DATA SOURCES

a. Administrative Casts Costs to Federal govern ent(Federal Government) of developing budget fort.

cast

b. Fund Control(Federal Government)

e. Fund Forecasting(Federal Government)

25

Supplemental appropriationsneeded during the year orthe turnback of fundsoccurring at year's end

Difference between budgetforecast and actual programexpenditures for the year

I

DPPD and OPBE budgetsInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

Budget data

PIMS dataBudget dataApplicant-based modelISFAM

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the budget fore-casting function

Determine magnitude and frequencyof both supplemental appropriationsrequired and funds returned for pastyears, using budget data

Calculate difference between budgetforecast prior to year's end and actualexpenditures for that yearAnalyze the impact of changes in thedelivery system on accuracy of budgetforecasts by simulating prior yeardata, using the applicant-based modelor ISFAM

26

EFFECTS


1. PRE - APPLICATION SUBSYSTEM

1.2 Budget Development Activity


a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government DPPD and OPBE budgets(Federal Government) of budget development Interviews with appro-

priate ED personnel


c. Certainty of Funds(Institution)(Applicant/Family)


Time elapsed from expectedbudget approval date to thedate of actual approval

04,

27

Budget data

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelBudget data

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the budget fo.'e-casting function

Determine magnitude and frequencyr.if both supplemental appropriationsrequired and funds returned for pastyears, using budget data

Using interviews and budget data,determine the number of days betweenexpected approval and actual approvalof the budget in past years

28

r.

EFFECTS


1. PRE- APPLICATION SUBSYSTEM

1.3 Promulgation of Regulations Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of promulgating regulations

b. Certainty of Funds(Institution)(Applicant/Family)

c. Administrative Costs(Preparatory)(Institution)

Time between expected pub-lication of final regulationsand actual publication

Cost to institutions ofadapting their proceduresin response to promulgationof regulations

DATA SOURCES

OPPD budgetInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelFederal Register

Institution case studiesNASFAA study of institu-tion costsNational Commission studySISFAP

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the regulationspromulgation activity

Fro,' the Federal Register and inter-views, determine the number of daysbetween expected publication of thefinal regulations and actual publica-tion in past years

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to Institutions of adaptingtheir procedures in response to thepromulgation of regulationsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and charac-teristics, from SISFAP

EFFECTS


I. PRE-APPLICATION SUBSYSTEM

1.4 Forms Development Activity


a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of forms development

b. Administrative Costs(Preparatory)(Institution)

Cost to institutions ofadapting their proceduresin response to developmentof forms

DPPD and DPO budgetsInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel


DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From Interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrative ,

costs attributable to the formsdevelopment activity

Determine from case studies and otherstudies the administrative costs toinstitutions of adapting their pro -cedures in response to developmentof formsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics, from SISFAP

EFFECTS



1.5 institutional Eligibility Determination Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of determining institutional

eligibility

b. Administrative Costs Cost to institutions of corn-(Institution) plying with the eligibility

determination process


33

Time between institutionalreceipt of the EligibilityCertification Letter (ECL)from EAES and the start ofthe academic yearPercentage of institutionsnot receiving a determin-ation of eligibility

DATA SOURCES

EAES budgetInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

Institution case studiesNASFAA study of institu-tion costsNationai Commission studySISFAP

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelInstitution case studiesStatistics on 'the eligibil-ity !determination process

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal admirdstrativecosts attributable to the determin-ation of institutional eligibility

Determine from case stue:es and otherrelevant stucues the administrativecosts to institutions of complyingwith the eligibility determinationprocessEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional Procedures and char-acteristics, from SISFAP

From case studies, statistics, andinterviews, estimate the time betweeninstitutional receipt of ECL and thebeginning of the academic yearFrom available statistics and inter-views, determine the percentage ofinstitutions not receiving a determin-ation of eligibility

34

EFFECTS



1.6 Institutional Certifk2ttion Activity


a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of certifying institutions

b. Administrative Costs Cost to institutions of corn-(Institution) plying with the certifica-

tion process

c. Certainty of Funds(Institution)(Applicant /Family)

Time between institutionalreceipt of the ProgramParticipation Agreement (PPA)from ILCB and the start ofthe academic yearPercentage of institutionsnot being certified

DCPR and ILCB budgetsInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel


Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelInstitution case studiesStatistics on the certi-fication process

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the institutionalcertification activity

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of complyingwith the certification processEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics, from SISFAP

From case studies, statistics, andinterviews, estimate the time betweenInstitutional receipt of the PPA andthe beginning of the academic yearFrom available statistics and inter-views, determine the percentage ofinstitutions not being certified

EFFECTS



1.7 Computer Systems Revision Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of computer systems revision

DATA SOURCES


b. Data Base Vulnerability Ease with which confidential Interviews with appro-(Applicant/Family) information is accessed priate ED personnel

Data from the centralprocessor on securityprocedures

I

37

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the computersystems revision activity

Determine the number and position ofpersons with access to confidentialinformation and procedures controllingthis access, from interviews and cen-tral processor data

38

DRAFT



1.8 Contract Support Activity

EFFECTS MEASURES DATA SOURCES ANALYSIS METHODS

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government DPO and AMPS budgets From interviews and budget documents,(Federal Government) of obtaining contract support Interviews with appro- determine Federal administrative

priate ED personnel costs attributable to the contractsupport activity

b. Data Base Vulnerability Ease with which confidential Processor RFP Determine the provisions required(Applicant/Family) information is accessed in the processor RFP for protecting

confidential information

EFFECTS



1.9 Disbursement System Planning Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of planning for the disburse-

ment system



Cost to institutions ofadapting their proceduresin response to disbursementsystem planning

Time between completion ofdisbursement system plan-ning and the start of theacademic year

d. Data Base Vulnerability I, Ease with which confidential(Federal Government) information is accessed for

students receiving fundsthrough ADS

41

DATA SOURCES

DPO budgetInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel


DPO statisticsInterviews with appro-priate El) personnelInstitution case studies

Interview with appro-priate ED personnelADS regulations on securityprocedures

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the disbursementsystem planning activity

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of adapting theirprocedures in response to disbursementsystem planningEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics, from SISFAP

Fram interviews, case studies, andstatistics, estimate the time betweencompletion of planning for the dis-bursement system and the start of theacademic year

Determine the number and positionsof persons with access to confidentialinformation and procedures controllingthis access, from interviews and regu-lations

42

EFFECTS



1.10 Institutional Funds Authorization Activity


a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government DPO budget(Federal Government) of institution funds author- Interviews with appro-

ization priate ED personnel


c. Certainty of Funds(Institution)

d. Certainty of Funds(Applicant/Family)

Difference between fundsauthorized to institutionsand the funds institutionsactually required

Difference in the timingand amount of funds betweenthe authorization and whatthe institution expected andoeeded

Number of recipients whowill not receive their PellGrants until the institutionreceives its authorization

43

PIMS data

PiMS dataInstitution case studies

Stage One QC study

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the institutionalfunds authorization activity

From PIMS data, calculate the differ-ence between schools' initial authori-zations and their actual expenditureson the October Progress Report

From PIMS data, calculate the differ-ence between schools' initial authori-zations and their actual expenditureson the October Progress ReportUsing case study data, determine insti-tution perceived shortfalls in timingand amount of authorized funds

Determine how many recipients attendinstitutions that will not advancemoney to recipients if sufficient PellGrant funds are not received promptlyfrom the Federal government, asdetermined in the Stage One QC study

44

EFFECTS

a. Administrative Costs(Federal Government)


2. STUDENT APPLICATION SUBSYSTEM

2.1 Student Application Activity

MEASURES

Costs to Federal government(including contractor costs)to process applications

b. Applicant Time Time required by applicant(Applicant/Family) to complete an application

c. Turnaround Time Time between submission of(Applicant/Family) the application and student

notification of the statusof his or her application

45

DATA SOURCES

Budget(s) of relevant EDbranch or branchesInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

REHAB/MACRO finalreport, "Field Testingof 1982-83 BEOG Appli-cation Forms"

Data from the centralprocessor

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the processingof student applications

From REHAB/MACRO report, deter-mine the time required to completethe Pell appilcation formAnalyze the relationship betweenchanges in the application form andapplication time, using statistics pre-sented in the REHAB report on timerequired to complete alternativeapplication forms

Using statistics from the central pro-cessor, determine the time It takesto process an application

46

EFFECTS

d. Miscalculation/Error(Applicant/Family)(Federal Government)(institution)

e. Availability of ProgramInformation(Applicant/Family)



2.1 Student Application Activity (Continued)

MEASURES

Errors committed by appli-cants on their applicationforms

DATA SOURCES

Stage One QC studyMACRO/REHAB finalreport, "Field Testingof the 1982-83 BEOGApplication Forms"Data from the centralprocessor

Percentage of students and High School and Beyondtheir families with know- studyledge about the Pell program

41

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Frequency and magnitude of studenterror as determined in the Stage OneQC studyDetermine the number of applicationsrejected for errors or insufficientinformation, from statistics providedby the central processorEstimate the percent of cases witherrors on each application item, fromthe QC study and the REHAB reportFrom the QC study, calculate themarginal impact of each applicationitem on total student errorUsing the MACRO report, compareerror rates across the different appli-cations fields testedEstimate the relationship betweenstudent error and students' perceivedproblems in completing the applica-tion form, using QC data

From the High School and Beyondsurvey of senior high school studentsand their families, determine the per-centage of students and families withsome knowledge of the Pell program

48

f.

DRAFT





Data Base Vulnerability Ease with which confidential Interviews with appro- Determine the number and position(Applicant/Family) student application informa- priate ED personnel of persons with access to confidential

tion is accessed Data from the centralprocessor

student application information andprocedures controlling this access,from interviews and central processordata

Distribution of Aid Probability of an eligible Merged applicant/recip- Categorize students according to like(Applicant/Family) applicant's becoming a

recipientient file characteristics (income, type of school

attended, etc.); then from the mergedapplicant/recipient file, determinethe probability that an eligible recip-ient will become a recipient for eachcategory

EFFECTS


3. STUDENT ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION SUBSYSTEM

3.1 Student Eligibility Determination Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) (including contractor costs)

to determine student eligi-bility

DATA SOURCES

Budget(s) of relevant EDbranch or branchesInterviews with appro-priate ED persoel

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the determin-ation of student eligibility

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of Institution case studies(Institution) determining applicants' NASFAA study of institu-

eligibility t ion costsNational Commission studyStage One QC study

c. Turnaround Time(Applicant/Family)

Time between submission ofthe application and deter-mination of eligibility

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to Institutions of determiningapplicants' eligibilityUsing QC data, determine the per-centage of institutions validatingcategorical eligibility items (citizen-ship, loan default, etc.)

Data from the central Using central processor data, deter-processor mine the time it takes to processInstitution case studies an application

From central processor data, deter-mine the average number of trans-actions per applicantDetermine, through case studies, thetime institutions require to deter-mine an applicant's categoricaleligibility

EFFECTS

d. Miscalculation/Error(Applicant/Family)(Federal Government)(Institution)



3.1 Student Eligibility Determination Activity (Continued)


Errors committed in deter- Stage One QC studymining students' eligibility

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From the Stage One QC study, deter-mine the frequency and magnitude oferrors occurring In both the centralprocessor's eligibility determinationand the institutions' calculation ofcategorical eligibilityCompare the error rates among MDEprocessors in an attempt to relateprocessing procedures to error rates,using QC dataEstimate the relationship betweencategorical eligibility errors andinstitution procedures, characteris-tics, and percent of financial aidofficers attending training sessions,using QC data

EFFECTS


I. STUDENT EIcIGIBILD'Y DETERMINATION SUBSYSTEM

3.2 Validation Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) (including contractor costs)

of validation

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institution of(Institution)

c. Applicant Time(Applicant/Family)

d. Turnaround Time(Applicant/Family)

55

validating applicants

Time applicants requireto comply with validation

Time between applicants'receipt of the validationnotice and the completionof validation

DATA SOURCES


Institution case studiesNASFAA study of institu-tion costsNational Commission studyStage One QC studySISFAP

Institution case studiesInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

Institution case studiesData from the centralprocessor

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From Interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to validation(especially of ADS students)

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of validatinginstitutionsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude this effect andand institutionlrocedures,.charac-teristics, and whether they conducttheir own validation, from QC studyand SISFAP

From case studies and interviews,determine subjectively frk,m know-ledgeable persons the time requiredby applicants to comply with valida-dation procedures

From institution case studies, esti-mate the average time required tocomplete validationFrom central processor data, deter-mine the number of cases resubmittedbecause of validation and the timerequired to process the resubmittedapplications

56

EFFECTS

e. Miscalculation/Error(Applicant/Family)(Federal Government)(institution)

f. Distribution of Aid(Applicant/Family)



3.2 Validation Activity (Continued)

MEASURES

The impact of validationon student errorError committed in thevalidation process

Probability that a validatedstudent will receive an award

g. Data Base Vulnerability Ease with which confidential(Applicant/Family) student information provided

during validation is accessed

57

DATA SOURCES

Stage One QC studyStage Three QC studyAMS report on the effec-tiveness of the PECs

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Estimate the relationship betweenvalidation and student error, usingStage One QC dataDe 'rmine the incidence of applica-tions items with out-of-toleranceerrors remaining after validation,from Stage One and Stage Three QCstudiesAnalyze the effectiveness of PECs,random validation, and error-pronemodeling in identifying high errorcases for validation, from the AMSreport and QC study

Data from the central Categorize students according to likeprocessor characteristics; using data from PIMSPIMS data and the central processor, determine

the percentage of validated studentsreceiving awards in each category

Institution case studies From case studies, determine insti-tutional procedures for controllingaccess to information provided bystudents during validation

58

EFFECTS

a. Administrative Costs(Institution)

Y., b. Turnaround Time(Applicant/Family)

c. Miscalculation/Error(Applicant/Family)(Federal Government)(Institution)


4. STUDENT BENEFIT CALCULATION SYSTEM

4.1 Student Award Calculation Activity (Regular Disbursement System)

MEASURES

Costs to Institutions ofdetermining students' awards

Time between students'submission of the applica-tion to the institution andthe notification of theiraward amount

Errors committed by insti-. tutions in calculating

students' awards

59

DATA SOURCES


Institution case studiesSISFAP

Stay One QC study

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of determiningstudents' awardsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics andprocedures, from SISFAP

From case studies, determine the timeinstitutions require to calculate awardamounts and to notify students oftheir awardsIdentify institutional procedureswhich might impact the magnitude ofthis effect, and estimate the percent-age of institutions employing theseprocedures, from SISFAP

Detqmine the frequency and magni-tude iaf errors occurring in the awardcalculation process, from the QCstudyEstimate the relationship betweenerrors in award calculation andinstitution characteristics, pro-cedures, and percent of financial aidofficers attendic 7, training sessions,using QC data

60

EFFECTS



4.2 Student Award Calculation Activity (Alternate Disbursement System)

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of calculating awards for

applicants under the Alter-native Disbursement System(ADS)

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(Institution) completing Part B of ED

Form 304 or 304-1 and sub-mitting it to the Federalgovernment


Time between the student'ssubmission of the eligibleSAR to the central processorand his or her receipt ofthe notice of initial awardamount

d. Miscalculation/Error Errors committed in calcu-(Applicant/Family)(Federal Government)

lating ADS students' awards

61

DATA SOURCES


SISFAPPell program data

Data from the centralprocessorInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

Stage One QC study

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine the administrativecosts to the Federal governmentattributable to award calculation

From SISFAP, determine the financialaid office budget for ADS schoolsUsing Pell data, calculate the numberand percent of ADS institutions inthe program

Determine the time required to pro-cess ADS students' award calculation,from central processor dataFrom interviews, subjectively deter-mine from knowledgeable personsthe time ADS institutions requireto complete necessary forms

Determine the frequency and magni-tude of award calculation errors forADS students, using QC data

62

EFFECTS



5. FUNDS DISBURSEMENT SUBSYSTEM

5.1 Establishment of Letter of Credit Activity

MEASURES

Costs to Federal governmentof establishing the letterof credit system

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(Institution) the procedures required

to receive funds througha letter of credit account

c. Certainty of Funds(Applicant/Family)(Institution)

Time between institution'srequest for establishment ofa letter of credit accountand establishment of theaccount

DATA SOURCES

EDPMTS budgetInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel


Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelStatistics from EDPMTS

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the establish-ment of letter of credit activity

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of establishinga letter of credit accountEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics and pro-cedures, from SISFAP

From interviews and statistics, cal-culate the time the Federal govern-ment takes to establish a letter ofcredit account

EFFECTS




5.2 Establishment of Cash Request System Activity

MEASURES

Costs to Federal governmentof establishing the cashrequest system

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of pro-(Institution) cedures required to receive

funds through a cash requestsystem


Time between institution'srequest for establishment ofa cash request account andestablishment of the accountDifference between institu-tion's initial request forfunds and the initial paymentactually authorized

DATA SOURCES


DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the establish-ment of cash request system activity

Institution case studies Determine from case studies and otherNASFAA study of institu- relevant studies the administrativetion costs costs to institutions of establish-Nation,.11 Commission study ing a cash request systemSISFAP Estimate the relationship between

the magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics and pro-cedures, from SISFAP

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelStatistics from EDPMTSPIMS data

From interviews and statistics, calculate the time the Federal govern-ment takes to establish a cash requestsystemCalculate, using PIMS data, thedifference between the institutions'initial requests and the funds theyactually receive

EFFECTS



1 FUNDS DISBURSEMENT SUBSYSTEM

5.3 Disbursement to Institutions Activity

MEASURES

Costs to Federal governmentof disbursing funds to insti-tutions

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of com-(Institution) plying with the procedures

required to receive funds

c. Fund Control(Federal Government)

Difference between the fundsinstitutions actually requiredand the funds they receivedat various points in time

67

DATA SOURCES


institution case studiesNASFAA study of institu-tion costsNational Commission studySISFAPPIMS data

PIMS data

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the disburse-ments to institutions activity

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of complyingwith procedures to receive fundsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect and insti-tutional characteristics, procedures,and whether they participate in thetape exchange, from SISFAP and P1MSdata

From PIMS data, for each scheduledProgress Report, calculate the differ-ence between institutions' actualspending (net expenditures as reportedon the Progress Report) and theauthorization they received on theprevious Progress Report

68

1/4

EFFECTS

d. Certainty of Funds(Institution)

e. Certainty of Funds(Applicant /Family)

6 9



5.3 Disbursement to Institutions Activity (Continued)

MEASURES

Difference between theamount of funds institutionsrequested and the amount theyactually receivedTime between the institutions'submission of.the ProgressReport and their receipt of anew authorization

Number of recipients whowill not receive their Pellgrants until the institutionreceives Its authorization

DATA SOURCES

PIMS dataPIMS program statistics

Stage One QC study

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Calculate the difference betweeninstitutions' request for additionalfunds and the actual authorizationsgranted, from PIMS dataFrom program statistics, determinethe time the Federal governmentrequires to process Progress Reports

Determine the number of recipientsattending institutions that will notadvance money to reciplents-Wsum,ficient Pell Grant funds are notreceived promptly from the Federalgovernment, as determined in theStage One QC study

70

EFFECTS


b. Turnaround Time(Applicant/Family)


...



5.4 Disbursement to Students Activity (Regular Disbursement System)

MEASURES

Costs to institutions of

DATA SOURCES

Institution case studiesdisbursing grants to students NASFAA study of institu-

tion costsNational Commission study

Time between students'notification of their awardamount and receipt of theirfunds

Errors committed in the dis-tribution of grants

SISFAPP1MS data


Stage One QC study

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of disbursinggrants to studentsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics, proce-dures, and number of disbursementperiods, from SISFAP and P1MS data

From case studies, determine the timeinstitutions require to disburse fundsto studentsIdentify institutional procedureswhich might impact the magnitude ofthis effect, and estimate the percent-age of institutions employing theseprocedures, from SISFAP

From QC data, determine the fre-quency and magnitude of errors madein disbursementsEstimate the relationship betweenerrors made in disbursements andinstitutional characteristics andprocedures

EFFECTS




5.5 Disbursement to Students Activity (Alternate Disbursement System)

MEASURES

Costs to Federal governmentof disbursing funds to ADSstudents

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(Institution) completing Part B of ED

Form 304 or 304-1 and sub-mitting it to U. Federalgovernment


d. Miscalculation/Error(Applicant/Family)(Federal Govern:nent)

Time between the students'notification of their awardamount and receipt of theirfunds

Errors committed in thedistribution of gt ants toADS students

73

DATA SOURCES

EDPMTS and ADS sectionbudgetsinterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

SISFAPPell program data

ADS statisticsInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

Stage One QC study

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine the Federal admin-istrative costs attributable to dis-bursing funds to ADS students

From SISFAP, determine the financialaid office budget for ADS schools,Using Pell data, calculate the numberand percent of ADS institutions inthe program

From interviews and statistics, sub-jectively determine from knowledge-able persons the time ADS institutionsrequire to complete necessary forms;determine the time the Federal govern-ment requires to make payments tostudents

Determine the frequency and mag-nitude of errors made in disbursingfunds to ADS students, using QC data

74

EFFECTS



6. ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION SUBSYSTEM

6.1 Student Account Reconziliation Activity


DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Costs to Federal government DPO budget From interviews and budget documents,of reconciling student Interviews with appro- determine Federal administrativeaccounts priate ED personnel costs attributable to the student

accou: : reconciliation activity

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of the(Institution) student account reconcil-

iation process

c. Miscalculation/Error Errors remaining after stu-(Applicant/Family) dent account reconciliation(Federal Government)(Institution)

d. Fund Control(Institution)

Change in institutions'accounts caused by reconcil-ing student accounts

75


Stage Two QC study

PIMS data

From case studies and other relevantstudies, determine the administrativecosts to institutions of reconcilingstudent accountsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics and pro-cedures, from SISFAP

From the QC study, determine thefrequency and magnitude of errorsbefore and after student accountreconciliationEstimate the relationship betweenerrors remaining after reconciliationand institutional characteristics andprocedures, using QC data

From PIMS data, determine thechange in institutions' authorizationoccurring after the program year ends

76

EFFECTS




6.2 butitutional Account Reconciliation Activity


DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Costs to Federal government DPO budget From interviews and budget documents,of reconciling institutional Interviews with appro- determine Federal administrativeaccounts priate ED personnel costs attributable to the institutional

account reconciliation activity

b. Administrative Costs sts to institutions of(Institution)

c. Fund Control(Federal Government

d. Fund Control(Inst i tut ion)

77

re ding their accountsInstitution case studies From case studies and other relevantNASFAA study of institu- studies, determine the administrativetion costs costs to institutions of reconcilingNational Commission study their accountsSISFAP Estimate the relationship between


Fund recoveries caused byinstitutional account recon-ciliation

Change in institutions'accounts caused by reconcil-ing their accounts

PIMS dataReport on "Savings inBasic Grant ProgramOperations"

PIMS data

From PIMS data and the report,determine the number of reconciledaccounts and the dollar value of thefunds recovered from these accountsDetermine the number of accountsremaining unreconciled, using PIMSdata

From the PIMS data, determine thechange in institutions' authorizationsoccurring after the program year ends

78

EFFECTS



6.3 Program Review and Audit Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of program reviews and audits

b. Administrative Costs(Institution)

Costs to institutions ofcomplying with programreviews and audits

c. Fund Control Funds recovered from insti-(Federal Government) tutions because of program(Institution) review and audit findings

DATA SOURCES

Budget documents of rele-vant branch or branchesInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel


ED statistics on programreviewsInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the programreview and audit activity

From case studies and other relevantstudies, determine the administrativecosts to institutions of complyingwith program reviews and auditsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics andprocedures from SISFAP

From interviews and statistics, deter-mine the amount of funds recoveredby the Federal government due toreviews and audits

DRAFT

GSL COMPONENT

EFFECTS

GSL COMPONENT


1.1 Budget Forecaster Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of developing the budget

forecast

b. Fund Control(Federal -rnment)

c. Fund Forecasting(Federal Government)


Difference between budgetforecast and actual programexpenditures for the year

DATA SOURCES


Budget da..a.

Program expenditure dataBudget dataISFAM

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the budget fore-casting function

Determine magnitude and frequencyof both supplemental appropriationsrequired and funds returned for pastyears, using budget data

Calculate difference between budgetforecast of payments required forinterest, special allowance, defaults,etc. prior to year's end and actualexpenditures for that yearAnalyze the impact of changes ininterest rates, defaults, etc. pn.accuracy of budget forecasts by sim-ulating prior year data, using ISFAM

EFFECTS


b. Certainty of Funds(Applicant/Family)(Lender)(State/GuaranteeAgency)

GSL COMPONENT



MEASURES

Costs to Federal governmentof budget development

Time elapsed from expectedbudget approval date to thedate of actual approval

84

DATA SOURCES


Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelBudget data

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From inte:iews and budget documents,determine Federal Administrativecosts attributable to the budget devel-opment function

Using interviews and budget data,determine the number of days betweenexpected approval and actual approvalof the budget in past years

85

EFFECTS

GSL COMPONENT




a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government DPPD budget(Federal Government) of promulgating regulations Interviews with appro-

priate El) personnel

h. Certainty of Funds Time between expected pub- Interviews with appro-(Applicant/Family) lication of final regulations priate ED personnel(Lender) and actual publication Federal Register(State/GuaranteeAgency)

c. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of Institution case studies(Preparatory) adapting their procedures NASFAA study of institu-(institution) 'n response to promulgation

of regulationstion costsNational Commission studySISFAP

d. Net Revenue(Preparatory)(State/GuaranteeAgency)

86

Costs to guarantee agenciesof adapting their proceduresin response to promulgationof regulations

Guarantee agency casestudiesGuarantee agency budgetdocuments

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS


From the Federal Register and inter-views, determine the number of daysbetween expected publication of thefinal regulations and actual publica-tion in past years

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of adaptingtheir procedures in response to thepromulgation of regulationsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and charac-teristics, from SISFAP

Determine from case studies and bud-get documents the administrativecosts to guarantee agencies of adapt-ing their procedures in response topromulgation of regulations

87

GSL COMPONENT


1.3 Promulgation of Regulations Activity (Continued)

MEASURES

Cost to lenders of adaptingtheir procedures in responseto the promulgation of regu-lations, as a percentage oftotal GSL volume

88

DATA SOURCES

Lender financial state-mentsLender case studies

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Determine from case studies andfinancial statement the administra-tive costs to lenders of adaptingtheir procedures in response to thepromulgation of regulations; dividethis figure by total loan volume

89

EFFECTS


b. Administrative Costs(Preparatory)(institution)

c. Net Revenue(Preparatory)(State/GuaranteeAgency)

d. Rate of Return(Preparatory)(Lender)

GSL COMPONENT



MEASURES

Costs to Federal governmentof forms development

Costs to institutions ofadapting their proceduresin response to developmentof forms

Costs to guarantee agenciesof adapting their proceduresin response to developmentof forms

Costs to lenders of adapt-ing their procedures inresponse to developmentof forms, as a percentageof total GSL volume

DATA SOURCES





DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From Interviews and budget docu-ments determine Federal adminis-trative costs attributable to theforms development activity

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of adaptingtheir procedures in response todevelopment of formsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics, from SISFAP

Determine from case studies andbudget documents the administra-tive costs to guarantee agencies ofadapting their procedures in responseto development of forms

Determine from case studies and otherstudies the administrative costs tolenders of adapting their proceduresin response to development of forms;divide this figure by total loan volume

EFFECTS

a. Net Revenue(State/GuaranteeAgency)


c. Rate of Return(Preparatory)(Lender)

GSL COMPONENT


1.5 GA Forms Development Activity

MEASURES

Cost to guarantee agenciesof developing the requiredforms

Costs to institutions ofadapting their proceduresin response to GA formsdevelopment

Cost t(, lenders of adaptingtheir procedures in responseto GA forms development, asa percentage of total GSLvolume

DATA SOURCES




DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine costs to guaranteeagencies attributable to the formsdevelopment activity

Determine from case studies and otherstudies the administrative costs toinstitutions of adapting their pro-cedures in response to GA develop-ment of formsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and charac-teristics, from SISFAP

Determine from case studies andfinancial statements the adminis-trative costs to lenders of adaptingtheir procedures in response to GAforms development; divide this figureby total loan volume

EFFECTS


- GSL COMPONENT


1.6 Institutl.Aal Eligibility Determination Activity

MEASURES

Costs to Federal governmentof determining institutionaleligibility

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of com-(Institution) plying with the eligibility



94

Time between institutionalreceipt of the EligibilityCertification Letter (ECL)from EAES and the start ofthe academic yearPercentage of institutionsnot receiving a determin-ation of eligibility

DATA SOURCES



Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelInstitution case studiesStatistics on the eligibil-ity determination process

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the determin-ation of institutional eligibility

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of complyingwith the eligibility determinationprocessEstimate the relationship between themagnitude of this effect and institu-tional procedures and characteristics,from SISFAP

From case studies, statistics, andinterviews, estimate the time betweeninstitutional receipt of the ECL andthe beginning of the academic yearFrom available statistics and inter-views, determine the percentage ofinstitutions not receiving a determin-ation of eligibility

95

EFFECTS

GSL COMPONENT

1. "RE- APPLICATION SUBSYSTEM

1.7 Institutional Certification Activity

MEASURES


b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of corn -(Institution) plying with the certifica-

tion process

c. Certainty of Funds( lnsti tut ion)(Applicant/Family)

Time between institutionalreceipt of the ProgramParticipation Agreement (PPA)from ILCB and the start ofthe academic yearPercentage of institutionsnot being certified

DATA SOURCES

DCPR and ILCB budgetsInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

ANALYSIS METHODS




Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to Institutions of complyingwith the certification processEstimate the relationship between themagnitude of this effect and institu-tional procedures and characteristics,from SISFAP

From case studies, statistics, andinterviews, estimate the time betweeninstitutional receipt of the PPA andthe beginning of the academic yearFrom available statistics and inter-views, determine the percentage ofinstitutions not being certified

EFFECTS


b. Rate of Return(Lender)

c. Certainty of Funds(Lender)(Applicant /Family)

GSL COMPONENT


1.8 Lender Eligibility Determination Activity

MEASURES

Costs to guarantee agenciesof determining lender eligi-bility for the program

Costs to lenders of complyingwith the eligibility deter-mination process, as a per-centage of total GSL volume

Percentage of lenders notreceiving a determinationof eligibilityTime between the lenders'application for eligibilityand the guarantee agencydecision

DATA SOURCES

Guarantee agency budgetdocumentsGuarantee agency casestudies

Lender case studiesLender financial state-ments

Guarantee agency andlender case studiesStatistics from guaranteeagencies and/or Federalgovernment

ANALYSIS METHODS

From budget documents and inter-views, determine the costs to guar-antee agencies attributable to thelender eligibility determinationactivity

From case studies and financial state-ments, determine the costs to lendersof complying with the eligibilitydetermination process; divide thisfigure by loan volume

From statistics, estimate the percent-age of lenders whose eligibility appli-cations are disapprovedUsing data from case studies, attemptto determine the time between sub-mission of an application for GSLeligibility and notice of approval ordisapproval

EFFECTS

GSL COMPONENT




a. Administrative Costs Costs to Institutions of Institution case studies(Institution) processing students' appli- NASFAA study of institu-

cations tion costsNational Commission studySISFAP

b. Rate of Return(State/GuaranteeAgency)

c. Net Revenue(Lender)

Costs to guarantee agenciesof designing student appli-cation forms

Costs to lenders of process-ing student applications,as a percentage of total GSLvolume



DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Determine from case studies and otherstudies the administrative costs toinstitutions of processing students'applicationsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics andprocedures, from SISFAP

From budget documen.,s and inter-views, determine the costs to guar-antee agencies attributable to thestudent application activity

From case studies and financial state-ments, determine the costs to lendersof processing student applications;divide this figure by loan volume

EFFECTS

GSL COMPONENT



MEASURES

d. Turnaround Time Time elapsed betw,en sub-(Applicant/Family) mission of the application

and 4.. .e lender's determin-ation of the loan amount

O Applicant Time(Applicant/Family)

Amount of time an applicantrequires to complete anapplication

102

DATA SOURCES

Institution and lendercase studiesSISFAP

Institution and lendercase studiesREHAB/MACRO finalreport, "Field Testingof l982-E1 BEOG Appli-cation Fo.ms"

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From case studies, estimate the timerequired by both institutions andlenders to process an applicationIdentify institutional procedures whichmight impact the magnitude of thiseffect, and estimate the percentageof institutions employing these pro-cedures, from SISFAP

From case studies, subjectively deter-mine from knowledgeable persons thetime required to complete a "typical"GSL applicationCompare a "typical" GSL applicationto the applications fields tested inthe REHAB report, in terms of numberaad type of questions, etc.; based onthis comparison, estimate the timerequired to complete a "typical" appli-cation by adjusting the REHAB report'stime measurement for completing thatapplication to account for differencesbetween the two formsEstimate the relationship betweenchanges in the application form andapplicant time, using REHAB reportstatistics on time required to com-plete alternative application forms

103

EFFECTS

GSL COMPONENT

2. STUDENT APPLICATION SUBSYSicEM


MEASURES

f. Miscalculation/Error Errors committed by appli-(Applicant/Family) cants on their application(Federal Government)(State/GuaranteeAgency)

(Lender)(Institution)

g. Distribution of Aid(Applicant/Family)

h. Availability of ProgramInformation(Applicant/Family)

DATA SOURCES

Stage One QC studyREHAB/MACRO finalreport, "Field Testingof 1982-83 BEOG Appli-cation Forms"

Probability of students with SISFAPgiven characteristics apply- High School and Beyonding for a GSL study

Percentage of students and High School and Beyondtheir families with know- studyledge about the GSL program

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

For GSL recipients in the QC sample,deterrnioe the frequency and magni-tude 01 C:rors projected on d "typical"GSL application completed in the samemanner as the Pell applicationFrom the QC study and REHAB report,use the error pattern on the Pellapplication to project the incidenceof errors for individual applicationitems on the "typical" GSL application

Categorize students by like character-istics; from SISFAP and the study,determine the probability that a stu-dent in a given category will applyfor a GSL

From the High School and Beyondsurvey of senior high school studentsand their families, determine the per-centage of students and families withsome knowledge of the GSL program

DRAFT

GSL COMPONENT

2. STUDENT APPLICATION SUILYSTEM



i. Data Bci$e Vulnerability Ease with which confidential institution and lender Vete! mine the number and position(Applicant/Family) student application informa- case studies of persons with access to confidential

tion Is accessed student application Ir s'x-mation andprocedures controlling this access,from case studies

EFFECTS



C. Miscalculation /Error(Applicant/Family)(Federal Government)(Lender)(State/GuaranteeAgency)

(Institution)

GSL COMPONENT



MEASURES

Costs to institutions ofdetermining applicants'eligibility

Time between students' sub-mission of the applicationand notification of theireligibility for the GSLprogram

Errors committed in theeligibility determinationprocess

108

DATA SOURCES

Institution case studiesNASFAA study of institu-tion costsNational Commission studyStage One QC study

institution case studiesSISFAP

Stage One QC study

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of determiningapplicants' eligibilityUsing QC data, determine the per-centage of institutions validatingcategorical eligibility items (citizen-ship, loan default, etc.)

From case studies, determine thetime institutions require to deter-mine students' eligibilityIdentify Institutional procedureswhich might impact the magnitudeof this effect, and estimate the per-centage of institutions employingthese procedures, from SISFAP

From the Stage One QC study, deter-mine the number and percent ofGSL recipients in the QC samplewhose categorical eligibility wasincorrectly calculatedEstimate the relationship betweencategorical eligibility errors andinstitution procedures, characteris-tics, and whether they validate thoseitems, using QC data

109

EFFECTS

GSL COMPONENT

4. STUDENT BENEFIT CALCULATION SYSTEgs

4.1 Determination of Loan Limits Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(Institution)


determining loan limits

Amount of time institutionsrequire to determine loanlimits

c. Miscalculation/Error Errers made in determining(Applicant/Family) GSL loan limits(Federal Government)(State/GuaranteeAgency)

(Lender)(Institution)

110

DATA SOURCES

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS




Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of determiningGSL loan limitsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics, pro-cedures, and whether they conducttheir own validation, from QC studyand SISFAP

From case studies, determine the timeinstitutions require to determine loanlimitsIdentify institutional procedureswhich might Impact the magnitude ofthis effect, and estimate the percent-age of institutions employing theseprocedures, from SISFAP

From case studies, attempt to discoverthe extent of errors occurring in thedetermination of loan limitsUsing SISFAP data, calculate loanlimits; then determine in how manycases the students' awards apparentlyviolate the calculated loan limits

111

EFFECTS

GSL COMPONENT


4.2 Determination of Loan Amount Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(Institution) determining loan amounts

if they act as lenders orhave an origination agree-ment

DATA SOURCES

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS


b. Rate of Return Costs to lenders of deter- Lender case studies(Lender) mining loan amounts, as a

percentage of total GSLvolume

Lender financial state-ments

c. Certainty of Funds Probability that a student Lender case studies(Applicant/Family) will receive a GSL of a given

amountGuarantee agency data

d. Turnaround Time(Applicant/Family)

Time required by lendersto process a student loanapplication

Lender case studies

112

From case studies and other relevantstudies, determine the administrativecosts to institutions of determiningloan amountsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics and pro-cedures, from SISFAP

From cases studies and financial state-ments, determine the costs to lendersof determining loan amounts; dividethis figure by loan volume

From case studies and data fromguarantee agencies, determine thepercent of applicants applying for,but not receiving, a GSL

From case studies, estimate the timerequired, on average, to process astudent loan application

113

EFFECTS

e. Applicant Time(Applicant/Family)

f. Distribution of Aid(Applicant/Family)

GSL COMPONENT


4.2 Determination of Loan Amount Activity (Continued)

MEASURES

Time the applicant requiresto complete an application

Differences in loan amountsand participation percentagesamong students

114

DATA SOURCES

Institution and lendercase studiesREHAB/MACRO finalreport, "Field Testingof 198243 BEOG Appli-cation Forms"

SISFAP

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From case studies, subjectively deter-termine from knowledgeable personsthe time required to complete a"typical" GSL applicationEstimate the relationship betweenchanges hi the application form andapplicant time, using REHAB reportstatistics on the time required tocomplete alternative application formsCompare a "typical" GSL applicationto the applications fields tested inthe REHAB report, in terms of numberand type of questions, etc.; based onthis comparison, estimate the timerequired to complete a "typical" GSLapplication by adjusting the REHABreport's time measurement for com-pleting that application to accountfor differences between the two forms

Categorize students by like character-istics; estimate the differences withinand among groups in receipt of GSLs,using SISFAP data weighted to accountfor changes In program utilization

115

EFFECTS

a. Availability of ProgramInformation(Applicant/Family)

Rate of Return(Lender)

c. Turnaround Time

GSL COMPONENT


5.1 Issuance of Promissory Note Activity

MEASURES

GSL recipients' understandingof the terms and obligationsof their loans

Costs to lenders of develop-ing and obtaining signatureson promissory notes, as a per-centage of GSL volume

Time required to obtain sig-(Applicant/Family) natures on promissory notes

116

DATA SOURCES

Institution and lendercase studies

Lender case studies

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From case studies, determine thesubjective opinions of knowledgeablepersons on the percentage of GSLreciphnts who do not understandthe conditions in their loans

From case studies, attempt to deter-mine the costs to lenders associatedwith developing and obtaining signa-natures on promissory notes; dividethis figure by total loan volume

Lender case studies From case studies, estimate the timerequired to process a promissory note

17

1

EFFECTS

a. Rate of Return(Lender)

b. Net Revenue(State/GuaranteeAgency)

c. Certainty of Funds(Applicant/Family)

GSL COMPONENT


5.2 Loan Deductions Activity


Difference between revenue Lender case studiesgenerated from loan deduc- Lender financial state-tions and costs associated meetswith this activity, as a per-centage of total GSL volume

Difference between revenuesgenerated from loan deduc-tions and costs associatedwith this activity

Difference between the loanamount applicants expect toreceive and the amount theyactually receive because ofloan deductions

Guarantee agency casestudiesGuarantee agency budgetdocuments and financialstatements

Lender and guaranteeagency case studiesLender and guaranteeagency financial documents

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Frcin case studies and financial stilt--ments, calculate the income lendersreceive from loan deductions; sub-tract costs associated with obtainingthis income; then divide the resultby total GSL volume

From case studies and financial docu-ments, determine the income lendersreceive from loan deductions; sub-tract costs associated with process-ing them

Using data from case studies andfinancial documents, determine thepercent of loans where deductionsare taken, and the average amount ofthe loan deductions

EFFECTS

a. Net Revenue(Guarantee Agency)


c. Certainty of Funds(Lender)(Applicant/Family)

d. Turnaround Time(Lender)(Applicant/Family)

GSL COMPONENT


5.3 Guarantee Approval Activity

MEASURES

Costs associated with pro-cessing guarantee approvals

Costs to lenders of sub-mitting guarantee approvalapplications, as a percentageof total loan volume

Likelihood that an applica-tion for guarantee approvalwill be approved or not

Time required for the guar-antee agency to process anapplication for guaranteeapproval

DATA SOURCES

Guarantee agency finan-cial documentsGuarantee agency casestudies


Guarantee agency statis-ticsGuarantee agency casestudies

Lender and guaranteeagency case studies

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From case studies and financial docu-ments, determine the costs associatedwith processing applications for guar-antee approval

From case studies Lnd financial state-ments, determine thf costs of submit-ting guarantee approval applications;divide this figure by total GSL volume

Using available statistics and casestudies, estimate the percentages ofapplications for guarantee approvalthat are approved or disapproved

From case studies, estimate the timerequired for a guarantee agency toprocess an application for guaranteeapproval

EFFECTS

GSL COMPONENT


5.4 Loan Disbursement Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(Institution) disbursing GSL funds to

students

g b. Rate of Return(Lender)


DATA SOURCES

Institution case studiesNASFAA studyNational Commission studySISFAP

DRA FT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From case studies and other relevantstudies, determine the administrativecosts to institutions of disbursingGSLsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional orocedures and charac-teristics, from SISFAP

Costs to lenders of disburs- Lender financial state- From case studies and financial state-ing loans, as a percentage ments ments, estimate the costs to lendersof total GSL volume . Lender case studies of disbursing loans; divide this figure

by total GSL volume

Time between student noti-fication of loan amounts andtheir actual receipt of funds

d. Miscalculation/Error Amount of incorrect loan(Lender) disbursements(Federal Government)(Applicant/Family)

122

Lender case studiesInstitution case studies

Lender case studiesLender statistics

From case studies, estimate the timerequired, on average, to disburse loansto students

From case studies and statistics,determine the dollar amount of loansoriginally disbursed which later hadto be corrected

123

EFFECTS

GSL COMPONENT


5.5 Interest and Special Allowance Payment Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of paying interest and special

allowance


c. Certainty of Funds(Lender)

d. Miscalculation/Error(Federal Government)(Lender)

Difference between revenuesgenerated from interest andspecial allowance paymentsand costs associated withthis activity, as a percent-age of total GSL volume

Time between the lenders'requests for interest andspecial allowance paymentsand their receipt of funds

. Difference between lenders'request and the funds theyactually receive

Errors identified in paymentof funds for interest andspecial allowance

DATA SOURCES



Interview with appro-priate ED personnelGSL payment statistics

Interview with appro-priate ED per.onnelGSL paymen# .Latistics

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From budget documents and interviewsdetermine the costs to the Federalgovernment of the interest andspecial allowance payment activity

From case studies and financial state-ments, calculate the income lendersreceive from interest and specialallowance payments; subtract theircosts of obtaining this income; thendivide the result by total GSL volume

From interviews and statistics, deter-mine the time required to processlenders' requests for interest andspecial allowance payments, and thedifference between the paymentsrequested and those received

From interviews and statistics, deter-mine the frequency and magnitudeof errors uncovered in the paymentof interest and special allowance

7 .1

EFFECTS



c. Certainty of Funds(State/GuaranteeAgency)

d. Miscalculation/Error(Federal Government)(State/GuaranteeAgency)

126

GSL COMPONENT

5. FUNDS DISBURSEMENT SUBSYSTEP

54 Administrative Cost Allowance Payment Activity


DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Costs to Federal government Budget documents of rele-of administrative cost vant ED branch or branchesallowances Interviews with appro-

priate ED personnel

Difference between revenuesgenerated from the adminis-trative cost allowance andthe associated costs of thisactivity

Time between the guaranteeagency requests for adminis-trative cost allowance pay-ments and their receipt ofthe fundsDifference between paymentrequests from guaranteeagencies and funds theyactually receive

Errors identified in paymentof the administrative costallowance


Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelGSL payment statistics

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelGSL payment statistics

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts of the administrative costallowance payment activity

From case studies and financial docu-ments, determine the income lendersreceive from the administrative costallowance; subtract the costs asso-ciated with requesting allowancepayments

From interviews and statistics,determine the time required to pro-cess guarantee agencies' requests foradministrative cost alknvance pay-ments, and the difference betweenthe payments requested and thosereceived

From interviews and statistics,determine the frequency and magni-tude of errors uncovered in paymentof the administrative cost allowance

127

EFFECTS



GSL COMPONENT


6.1 Note Transfer and/or Servicing Contract Activity

MEASURES

Costs to guarantee agenciesof processing LTS formsfor this activity

Difference between revenuegenerated from transfersand/or service contractsand costs for this activity,as a percentage of total GSLvolume

DATA SOURCES



DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From budget documents and inter-views, determine the costs to guar-antee agencies attributable to pro-cessing LTS forms for this activity

From case studies and financial state-ments, calculate the income lendersreceive from loan transfers and/orservice contracts; subtract costs forobtaining this income; then dividethe result by total GSL volume

EFFECTS

GSL COMPONENT


6.2 Enrollment Status Reporting Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of processing enrollment

status reports

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(Institution) confirming enrollment status

for GSL recipients

c. Net Revenue(State/GuaranteeAgency)

d. Rate of Return(Lender)

Costs to guarantee agenciesof processing enrollmentstatus reports

Costs to lenders of process-ing enrollment status reports,as a percentage of totalGSL volume

DATA SOURCES


DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the enrollmentstatus reporting activity




From case studies and other relevantstudies, determine the administrativecosts to institutions of confirmingGSL recipients' enrollment statusEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics and pro-cedures, from SISFAP

From budget documents and inter-views, determine costs to guaranteeagencies attributable to the enroll-ment status reporting activity

From case studio! and financial state-ments, determine costs to lenders ofprocessing enrollment status reports;divide this figure by GSL loan volume

EFFECTS

e. Miscalculation/Error(Applicant/Family)(Federal Government)(Lender)(State/GuaranteeAgency)

(Institution)

GSL COMPONENT


6.2 Enrollment Status Reporting Activity (Continued)


Errors made in the determin- Stage One QC studyation of enrollment status

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

For GSL recipients in the QC sample,use the error pattern for Pell studentsto determine the incidence of insti-tutions reporting GSL recipients'enrollment as half-time or greaterwhen QC data indicated they wereless than half-time

EFFECTS

a. Rate of Return(Lender)

b. Applicant Time(Applicant/Family)


GSL COMPONENT


6.3 Entrance into Grace and/or Deferment Period Activity

MEASURES

Costs to lenders of process-ing grace and/or defermentrequests, as a percentageof total GSL volume

Time the recipient requiresto provide written evidenceof eligibility for deferment

Time between submissionof a request for defermentand receipt of the deferment

134

DATA SOURCES

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Lender case studies From case studies and financial state-Lender financial state- ments, determine costs to lendersments of grace and/or deferment requests;

divide this figure by GSL loan volume


Lender case studies

From case studies, subjectively deter-mine from knowledgeable persons thetime GSL recipients require to obtainwritten evidence of eligibility fordeferment

From case studies, determine thetime lenders require to process adeferment request

135

EFFECTS



c. Availability of ProgramInformation(Applicant/Family)

GSL COMPONENT

& ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION SUBSYSTEM

6.4 Development of Repayment Schedule Activity

MEASURES

Costs to guarantee agenciesof processing LTS forms forthis activity

Costs to lenders of develop-ing a repayment schedule,as a percentage of total GSLvolume

GSL recipients' understandingof the terms and obligationsof their loans

d. Applicant Time Time GSL recipients require(Applicant/Fainily) to negotiate a repayment

schedule

DATA SOURCES




institution and lendercase studies

!)RAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From budget documents and inter-views, determine costs to guaranteeagencies attributable to processingLTS forms for this activity

From case studies and financial state-ments, determine costs to lendersof developing a repayment schedule;divide this figure by GSL loan volume

From case studies, determine thesubjective opinions of knowledgeablepersons on the percentage of GSLrecipients who do not understandthe c,nditions in their loans

From case studies, determine sub-jectively from knowledgeable personsthe time GSL recipients require tonegotiate a repayment schedule

EFFECTS

a. Applicant Time(Applicant/Family)


C. Net Revenue(State/GuaranteeAgency)

GSL COMPONENT


6.5 Loan Repayment Activity

MEASURES

Time GSL recipients requireto submit loan payments

Difference between revenuesgenerated from repaymentsand costs for this activity,as a percentage of total GSLvolume

Costs to guarantee agenciesof processing LTS forms forthis activity

DATA SOURCES




DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From case studies, determine sub-jectively from knowledgeable personsthe time GSL recipients require tosubmit loan payments

From case studies and financial state-ments, calculate the income lendersreceive from loan repayments; sub-tract costs for obtaining this income;then divide the result by total GSLvolume

From budget documents and inter-views, determine costs to guaranteeagencies attributable to processingLTS forms for this activity

EFFECTS


GSL COMPONENT


6.6 Loan Default Activity


Time the recipient spends in Institution and lenderresponding to collection

b. Administrative Costs Casts to Federal government(Federal Government) arising from loan defaults


d. Rate of Return(Lender)

Difference between revenuesgenerated from loan defaultsand collection costs forthis activity

Difference between revenuesgenerated from loan defaultsand collection costs forthis activity, as a percent-age of total GSL volume

case studies

CCS budgetInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel



DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From case studies, determine sub-jectively from knowledgeable personsthe time GSL recipients spend inresponding to collection attempts(e.g., number of phone calls, letters,etc.)

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine costs to the Fed-eral government arising from pro-cessing loan defaults

From case studies and financial docu-ments, determine the income lendersreceive from loan defaults; subtractcollection costs for processing them

From case studies and financial state-ments, calculate the income lendersreceive from loan defaults; subtractcollection costs for obtaining thisincome; then divide the result bytotal GSL volume

\EFFECTS

e. Certainty of Funds(Lender)

f.

g.

GSL COMPONENT


6.6 Loan Default Activity (Continued)

MEASURES

Time between the lenders'requests for default pay-ments from the guaranteeagencies and their receiptof the fundsDifference between lenders'payment requests and fundsthey\actually receive

DATA SOURCES

Guarantee agency casestudiesStatistics from guaran-tee agencies

DRAFT

'%.14ALYSIS METHODS

From case studies and statistics,determine the time required toprocess lenders' requests for default

\payments, and the difference betweenthe payments requested and received

Certainty of Funds Time between guarantee Interviews with appro- From interviews and statistics, deter-(State /Guarantee agencies' requests for default priate ED personnel mine the time required to processAgency) payments and their receipt

of the fundsDifference between guaran-antee agencies' requestsand funds they actuallyreceive

GSL payment statistics guarantee agencies' requests fordefault payments, and the differencebetween payments requested and thosereceived

Miscalculation/Error Errors made in determin- Interviews with appro- From interviews and program statis-(Applicant /Family) atim of loan defaults priate ED personnel tics, estimate the number of loan(Lender) GSL program statistics defaults incorrectly paid by the(State/Guarantee Federal governmentAgency)

(Federal Government)

142143

EFFECTS


b. Administrative Cost(Federal Government)



GSL COMPONENT

6. ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION SUBSYSTEAN

6.7 Loan Write-Off Activity

MEASURES

Time recipients spend inresponding to collectionattempts

Costs to Federal governmentarising from loan write-offs

Difference between revenuesgenerated from loan write-offs and costs associatedwith this activity

Difference between revenuesgenerated from loan write-offs and costs associatedwith this activity, as a per-centage of total GSL volume

DATA SOURCES


CCS budgetInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel



DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From case studies, determine sub-jectively from knowledgeablepersons the time GSL recipientsspend In responding to collectionattempts (e.g., number of phonecalls, letters, etc.)

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine costs to the Fed-eral government arising from pro-cessing loan write-offs

From case studies and financial docu-ments, determine the income lendersreceive from loan write-offs; sub-tract the costs for processing them

From case studies and financial state-ments, calculate the income lendersreceive from loan write-offs; sub-tract costs for obtaining this income;then divide the result by total GSLvolume

.7

EFFECTS

e. Certainty of Funds(Lender)

f. Certainty of Funds(State/GuaranteeAgency)

g. Miscalculation/Error(Applicant/Family)(Lender)(State/GuaranteeAgency)

146

GSL COMPONENT


6.7 Loan Write-Off Activity (Continued)

MEASURES

Time between the lenders'request for loan write-off payments from guaranteeagencies and their receiptof the hindsDifference between lenders'payment requests and thefunds they actually receive

Time between guaranteeagencies' requests for loanwrite-off payments and theirreceipt of the fundsDifference between the guar-antee agencies' paymentrequests and the funds theyactually receive

Errors made in determin-ation of loan write-offs

DATA SOURCES

Guarantee agency casestudiesStatistics from guaran-tee agencies

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelG5L payments statistics

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelGSL program statistics

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From case studies and statistics,determine the time required to pro-cess lenders' requests for loan write-off payments, and the differencebetween the payments requested andthose received

From interviews and statistics, deter-mine the time required to processguarantee agencies' requests for loanwrite-off payments, and the differ-ence between the payments requestedand those received

From Interviews and program statis-tics, estimate the number of loanwrite-offs incorrectly paid by theFederal government

147

EFFECTS



c. Rate of Return(Lender)

d. Availability of ProgramInformation(Federal Government)(State/GuaranteeAgency)

(Lender)

GSL COMPONENT

6, ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION SUBSYSTEM

6.$ GA Reporting Activity

MEASURES

Costs to Federal governmentof processing Call Reports

Costs to guarantee agenciesof completing Call Reports

Costs to lenders of com-pleting Call Reports, asa percentage of total GSLvolume

Accuracy and usefulness ofCall Report data

e. Fund Control Completeness of Call Report(Federal Government) data

DATA SOURCES

Budget(s) of relevant EDbranch or branchesinterviews with appro-priate ED personnel



Interviews with appro-priate ED persoimelGuarantee agency andlender case studies

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelGSL statistics

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine Federal adminis-strative costs attributable to pro-cessing Call Reports

From budget documents and inter-views, determine costs to guaranteeagencies attributable to completingCall Reports

From case studies and financial state-ments, determine costs to lenders ofcompleting Call Reports; divide thisfigure by loan volume

From interviews and case studies,subjectively determine from know-ledgeable persons the accuracy andusefulness of Call Report data

From interviews and statistics, deter-mine the percentage of total loanvolume represented on Call Reports

N

EFFECTS

GSL COMPONENT


6.9 Lender Review Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of lender review


c. Fund Control(Federal Government)(Lender)

Costs to lenders of comply-ing with the review process,as a percentage of total GSLvolume

Funds recovered from lendersbecause of review findings

DATA SOURCES

LRS budgetInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel


LRS statisticsInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine Federal administra-tive costs attributable to the lenderreview activity

From case studies and financial docu-ments, determine the .costs to lendersof complyinv with the review process;divide this figure by loan volume

From interviews and statistics, deter-mine the dollar amount of funds theFederal government recovers due tolender reviews

DRAFT

CAMPUS-BASED COMPONENT

EFFECTS

a. Administrative Costs




MEASURES

Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of budget development

DRAFT

DATA SOURCES ANALYSIS METHODS

13PPD and OPBE budgetsInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the budgetdevelopment activity

b. Certainty o Funds Time elapsed from expected Interviews with appro- Using interviews and budget data,Onstituti budget approval date to the priate ED personnel determine the number of days between(Applicant /Family) date of actual approval Budget data expected approval and actual approval

of the budget in past years

EFFECTS





a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government DPPD budget(Federal Government) of promulgating regulations Interviews with appro-

priate ED personnel

b. Certainty of Funds(institution)(Applicant/Family)

c. Administrative Costs(Preparatory)(lnsti to .cion)

Time between expected pub-lication of final regulationsand actual publication

Costs to institutions ofadapting their proceduresin response to promulgationof regulations

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelFederal Register


DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS


From the Federal Register and inter-views, determine the number of daysbetween expected publication of thefinal regulations and actual publica-tion in past years

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of adaptingtheir procedures in response to thepromulgation of regulationsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and charac-teristics, from SISFAP

EFFECTS





a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of forms development


Costs to institutions ofadapting their proceduresin response to developmentof forms



DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine Federal adminis-trative costs attributable to theforms development activity

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of adaptingtheir procedures in response to devel-opment of formsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics, from SISFAP

EFFECTS



1.4 Institutional Eligibility Determination Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of determining institutional

eligibility

b. Administrative Costs Cost to institutions of com-(Institution) plying with the eligibility



Time between institutions'receipt of the EligibilityCertification Letter (ECL)frcfn EAES and the start ofthe academic yearPercentage of institutionsnot receiving a determin-ation of eligibility

DATA SOURCES



Interviews with appro-priate Eto personnelInstitution case studiesStatistics on the eligibil-ity determination process

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the determin-ation of institutional eligibility

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of complyingwith the eligibility determinationprocessEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics, from SISFAP

From case studies, statistics, andinterviews, estimate the time betweeninstitutions' receipt of ECL and thebeginning of the academic yearFrom available statistics and inter-views, determine the percentage ofinstitutions n A receiving a determin-ation of eligibility

EFFECTS



1.5 bistitutional Certification Activity



b. Administrative Costs Cost to institutions of corn-(Institution) plying with the certifica-

tion process


1.61

Time between institutions'receipt of the ProgramParticipation Agreement (PPA)from ILCB and the start ofthe academic yearPercentage of institutionsnot being certified

DCPR and 1LCB budgetsInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel



DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS


Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of complyingwith the certification processEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics, from SISFAP

From case studies, statistics, andinterviews, estimate the time betweeninstitutions' receipt of the PPA andthe beginning of the academic yearFrom available statistics and inter-views, determine the percentage ofinstitutions not being certified

162

EFFECTS



1.6 Low Income School List Development Activity


a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government Budget(s) of relevant Et)(Federal Governsnent) of developing the low income branch or branches

school list Interviews with appro-priate ED personnel

b. Administrative Costs Costs to states of aiding(State) in development of the low

income school list

DRAF

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine Federal adminis-trative costs attributable to thelow income school list developmentactivity

State Education Authority From case studies, estimate states'case studies costs of helping identify low income

schools

EFFECTS


b. Distribution of Aid(State)(Institution)(Applicant/Family)



1.7 State Allocation Activity

MEASURES

Costs to Federal governmentof allocating funds to states

Differences among states Inthe allocation of funds

DATA SOURCES

DPO budgetsInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

Report to Congresson "Inconsistencies inAwarding Financial Aidto Students under FourFederal Programs"

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the state allo-cation activity

From the report to Congress, deter-mine differences in state allocationsnot accounted for by differences instudents, income, etc., and theireffects on institutions and studentswithin states

EFFECTS



IA Institutional Application for Funds Activity


a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government Budget(s) of relevant ED(Federal Government) of processing FISAP forms branch or branches

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnel

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of corn-(Institutiln) pleting FISAP forms


DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine Federal administra-tive costs attributable to processingFISAP forms

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of completingFISAP formsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics, from SISFAP

EFFECTS





1.9 Initial Institutional Allocation Activity


Costs to Federal governmentof determining institutions'initial allocations

Time between institutions'notification of their initialallocations and the start ofthe academic yearPercentage of institutionsfiling appeals


DPO dataInterviews with appro-priate ED personnel

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine Federal adminis-trative costs attributable to theinitial institution allocation activity

From DPO data and interviews, deter-mine usual mailing date of initialallocation notifications compared tothe start of the academic year formost schoolsDetermine percentage of institutionsfiling appeals of their initial author-izations, using DPO statistics

EFFECTS



1.10 Appeal of Initial Allocation Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of processing appeals

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(Institution)


filing appeals

Difference between institu-tions' initial and final allo-cationsTime required to processappeals

171

DATA SOURCES


DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine Federal adminis-trative costs of processing appeals


DPO dataInterviews with appro-priate personnel

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of filing appealsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics, from SISFAP

From DPO data, determine the changein institutions' allocations grantedby the appeals panelEstimate the time required to processappeals, from DPO data and interviews

172

EFFECTS



c. Distribution of Aid(Institution)(Applicant/Family)



1.11 Final Allocation Activity


Costs to Federal governmentof disbursing final alloca-tions to institutions

Difference in the timing andamount of funds between theamounts authorized and thoseexpected by institutions

Differences among institu-tions in the magnitude oftheir allocations


FISAPInterviews with appro-priate ED personnelInstitution case studies

Report to Congresson "Inconsistencies inAwarding Financial Aidto Students under FourFederal Programs"FISAP

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine the Federal admin-istrative costs attributable todisbursing final allocations to insti-tutions

From FISAP, determine the changesin institutions' funding levels in prioryearsEstimate the time between institu-tions' receipt of final allocations andthe start of the academic year, fromcase studies and interviews

From the report to Congress, estimatedifferences in institutional alloca-tions apparently unrelated to factorssuch as size, need of students, etc.Categorize institutions by like char-acteristics, and determine the differ-ences within and between groups inthe allocation of Campus-Based aid

EFFECTS



2.1 Financial Statement Processing Activity

MEASURES

a. Application Costs Fees charged to applicants(Application/Family) to process their financial

statements


Time required by applicantsto complete a "typical"financial statement

DATA SOURCES

Data from processors

Institution case studiesREHAB/MACRO finalreport, "Field Testingof 1982-83 BEOG Appli-cation Forms"

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Using data from approved processors,determine the number of applicantsusing each processor, and the feescharged by the processors

From case studies, subjectively deter-mine from knowledgeable persons thetime required to complete a "typical"financial statementCompare a "typical" financial state-ment to applications field tested inthe REHAB report, in terms of numberand type of questions, etc.; based onthis comparison, estimate the timerequired to complete a "typical" finan-cial statement by adjusting the REHABreport's time measurement for com-pleting that statement to accountfor differences between the two formsEstimate the relationship betweenchanges in the financial statementform and applicant time, using REHABreport statistics on time required tocomplete alternative application forms

EFFECTS


d. Mit;calcu.(Applicanti(Feder II Government)(Institution)



2.1 Financial Statement Processing Activity (Continued)

MEASURES

Time between submission ofan application and the stu-dent's notification on thestatus of his or her appli-cation

Errors applicants commit ontheir financial statements

e. Data Base Vulnerability Ease with which confidential(Applicant/Family) student application informa-

tion is accessed

177

DATA SOURCES


Stage One QC StudyREHAB/MACRO finalreport, "Field Testingof 1982-83 BEOG Appli-cation Forms"


DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Using statistics from processors,determine the time it takes to pro-cess an application

For Campus-Based recipients in theQC sample, determine the frequencyand magnitude of errors projected ona "typical" financial statement com-pleted in the same manner as the PellapplicationFrom the QC study and REHAB report,use the error pattern on the Peltapplication to project the incidenceof errors for individual items on the"typical" financial statement

Determine the number and positionsof persons with access to confidentialstudent application information andprocedures for controllin% this access,from processors' data

178

EFFECTS


Turnaround Time(Applicant/Family)




MEASURES

Amount of time applicantsrequire to complete a"typical" Campus-Basedaid application

Time between submission ofan application and the stu-dent's notification of thestatus of his or her appli-cation

179

DATA SOURCES

Institution case studiesREHAB/MACRO finalreport, "Field Testingof 1982-83 BEOG Appli-cation Forms"

Institution case studies

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From case studies, subjectivelydetermine from knowledgeable per-sons the time required to completea "typical" application for Campus-Based aidCompare a "typical" application forCampus-Based aid to the applicationsfields tested in the REHAB reportin terms of number and type of ques-tions, etc; based on this comparison,estimate the time required to com-plete a "typical" application forCampus-Based aid by using REHABreport time measurements on com-pleting those forms to account fordifferences in the two formsEstimate the relationship betweenchanges in the applications formand applicant time, using REHABreport statistics on the time neededto complete alternative applicationforms

From case studies, determine the timeit takes to process an application

180

EFFECTS


d. Distribution of Aid(Applicant/Family)

e. Availability of ProgramInformation(Applicant/Family)

1.81



2.2 Student Application Activity (Confirmed)

MEASURES

Errors committed by appli-cants on their Campus-Basedaid applications

Probability of students withgiven characteristics apply-ing for Campus-Based aidprograms

Percentage of students andtheir families with knowledgeabout the Campus-Based aidprograms

DATA SOURCES

Stage One QC studyREHAB/MACRO finalreport, "Field Testingof 1982-83 BEOG Appli-cation Forms"

SISFAPHigh School and Beyondstudy

High School and Beyondstudy

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

For Campus-Based recipients in theQC sample, determine the frequencyand magnitude of errors projected ona "typical" Campus-Based applicationcompleted in the same manner as thePell applicationFrom the QC study and REHAB report,use the error pattern on the Pellapplication to project the incidenceof errors for individual applicationitems on a "typical" Campus-Basedapplication

Categorize students by like character-istics; from SISFAP and the study,determine the probability that a stu-dent in a given category will applyfor Campus-Based aid

From the High School and l'eyondsurvey of senior high school studentsand their families, determine the per-centage of students and families withsome knowledge of Campus-Based aidprograms

182

EFFECTS





DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

f. Data Base Vulnerability Ease with which confidential Institution case studies Determine the number and position(Applicant/Family) student application informa- of persons with access to confidential

tion is accessed student application information andprocedures controlling this access,from case studies

g. Administrative Costs(Institution)

Costs to institutions ofprocessing students' appli-cations


Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts of processing students' appli-cationsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics and pro-cedures, from SISFAP

EFFECTS


c° b. Turnaround Time(Applicant/Family)

C. Miscalculation /Error(Applicant/Family)(Institution)(Federal Government)

18x5




MEASURES

Costs to institutions ofdetermining applicants'eligibility

Time between students' sub-mission of the applicationto institutions and notifica-tion of their eligibility forCampus-Based aid programs

Errors committed in theeligibility determinationprocess

DATA SOURCES

Institution case studiesNASFAA study of institu-tion costsNational Commission studyStage One QC study


Stage One QC study

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Deter..line from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of determiningapplicants' eligibilityUsing QC data, determine the per-centage of Institutions validatingcategorical eligibility items (citizen-ship, loan default, etc.)

From case studies, determine thetime institutions require to deter-mine students' eligibilityIdentify institutional procedureswhich might impact the magnitudeof this effect, and estimate the per-centage of institutions employingthese procedures, from SISFAP

From QC data, determine the numberand percent of Campus-Based recip-ients in the QC sample whose cate-gorical eligibility was incorrectlycalculatedEstimate the relationship betweencategorical eligibility errors andinstitution procedures, characteris-tics, and whether they validate thoseitems, using QC data

166

EFFECTS




d. Miscalculation/Error(Applicant/Family)(Institution)(Federal Government)

e. Data Base Vulnerability(Applicant/Family)


3. ST DENT ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION SUBSYSTEM

3.2 Optional Validation Activity

MEASURES

Costs to institutions ofvalidating applicants

Time applicants requireto comply with validation

Time between applicant&receipt of the validationnotice ano the completionof validation

The impact of validationon student error

Ease with which confidentialstudent information providedduring validation is accessed

DATA SOURCES


Institution case studes

4Institution case studies

Stage One QC study


DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts of validating applicantsEstimate the number of institutionsconducting their own validation,from the QC study

From case studies, determine sub-jectively from knowledgeable personsthe time applicants require to complywith validation procedures

From institution case studies, esti-mate the average time required tocomplete validation

Estimate the relationship betweenvalidation and student error, usingStage One QC data

From case studies, determine insti-tutional procedures for controllingaccess to information provided bystudents during validation

EFFECTS



c. Certainty of Fun(Applicant/Family,

d. Miscalculation/Error(Applicant/Family)(Institution)(Federal Government)

1_89


4. STUDENT BENEFIT CALCULATION SUBSYSTEM

4.1 student Award Calculation Ilcaivity

MEASURES

Costs to institutions ofdetermining applicants'awards

Time between institutions'determination of students'eligibility and their receiptof award letters

Probability that an eligibleapplicant will receive anaward

Awards distributed in excessof tht, allowable maximum

DATA SOURCES



SISFAP

SISFAP

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of determiningapplicants' awardsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics and pro-cedures, from SISFAP

From case studies, determine thetime institutions require to deter-mine award amountsIdentify institutional procedureswhich might impact the magnitudeof this effect, and estimate the per-centage of institutions employingthese procedures, from SISFAP

From SISFAP, determine the percent-age of students applying for, but notreceiving, Campus-Based aid

Estimate the frequency and magnitudeof institutions disbursing awardsthat exceed the maximum allowableunder the regulations, using SISFAPdata

190

EFFECTS


4. STUDENT BENEFIT CALCULATION SUBSYSTEM

4 Student Award Calculation Activity (Continued)


e. Distribution of Aid Probability that a student(Applicant/Family) with given characteristics

will receive Campus-Basedaid of a given amount

SISFAPFISAPISFAMReport to Congresson "Inconsistencies InAwarding Financial Aidto Students under FourFederal Programs"

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Categorize students according to likecharacteristics; compare the percentof students receiving awards and theaward amounts within and betweengroups, from SIVAP and FISAPUsing SISFAP data, evaluate differ-ences in packaging philosophy amongschoolsSimulate the effect of changes inpackaging philosophies on distributionof Campus-Based aid, using ISFAMFrom the report to Congress, esti-mate differences in student awards,remaining need, etc. among studentsat different schools

EFFECTS



5.1 Establishment of Letter of Credit Activity

MEASI tRES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federa! Government) of establishing the letter

of credit system

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(institution) the procedures required

to receive funds througha letter of credit account


Time between institution'srequest for establishmentof a letter of credit accountand establishment of theaccount

DATA SOURCES

EDPMTS budgetIfitervievs with appro-priate ED personnel

institution case studiesNASFAA study of institu-tion costsNational Commission studySISFAP

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelStatistics from EDPMTS

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the establish-ment of letter of credit activity

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to Institutions of establishinga letter of credit accountEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics and pro-cedures, from SISFAP

From interviews and statistics, cal-cuiete the time the Federal govern-ment takes to establish a letter ofcredit account

EFFECTS



5.2 Establishment of Cash Request System Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of establishing the cash

request system

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of pro-(Institution) cedures required to receive

funds through a cash request


Time between institution'srequest for establishment ofa cash request account andestablishment of the accountDifference between institu-tion's request far funds andthe initial payment actuallyauthorized

DATA SOURCES

EDPMTS budgetInterviews with appro-priate En personnel

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the establish-ment of cash request system activity

Institution case studiesNASFAA study ei institu-tion costsNational Commission studySISFAP

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelStatistics from DPMTS

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of establish-ing a cash request systemEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics and pro-cedures, from SISFAP

From interviews and statistics, cal-calculate the time Ce Federal govern-ment takes to establish a cash requestsystemCalculate, from statistics, the differ-ence between the institution's initialrequest and the funds it actuallyreceives

EFFECTS



5.3 Award Acceptance Activity


a. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of Institution case studies(Institution) processing award acceptance NASFAA study of insti-

letters tuion costsNational Commission studySISFAP


c. Applicant/Time(Applicant/Family)

d. Distribution of Aid(Applicant/Family)

197

Time between the students'notification of their awardamount and the institution'sinitiation of disbursementprocedures

Time required by applicantsto accept their awards

Probability that a studentwith a given set of characteristics will reject Campus-Based aid



SISFAP

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Determine om case studies and otherstudies the administrative costs toinstitutions of processing awardacceptance lettersEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics and pro-cedures, from SISFAP

From case studies, estimate the timeinstitutions require to process anaward acceptance letter and to begindisbursement proceduresIdentify institutional procedureswhich might impact the magnitude ofthis effect, and estimate the per-centage of institutions employingthese procedures, from SISFAP

From case studies, estimate the timerequired by students to completethe award acceptance process

Categorize students by like character-istics and compare the percentage ofstudents rejecting aid within andbetween groups, from SISFAP

198

EFFECTS


Lascc





5.4 SEOG Disbursement Activity

DATA SOURCESMEASURES

Costs to institutions ofdisbursing SEOG to students


Errors committed in the dis-tribution of SEOG funds



ANALYSIS METHODS

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant stueics the administrativecosts to institu 'ions of disbursingSEOG to studentsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics, pro-cedures, and number of disbursementperiods, from SISFAP data

From case studies, determine the timeinstitution require to disburse fundsto studentsIdentify institutional procedureswhich might impact the magnitude ofthis effect, and estimate the percent-age of institutions employing theseprocedures, from SISFAP

Appropriate audit findings From audit findings, determine thefrequency and magnitude of errorsmade in SEOG disbursements

EFFECTS



c. Miscalculation /Error(Applicant/Family)(Federal Government)(Institution)



5.5. NDSL Disbursement Actiyity

MEASURES

Costs to institutions of

DATA SOURCES

Institution case studiesdisbursing NDSL to students NASFAA study of institu-


Errors committed in the dis-tribution of NDSL funds

tion costsNational Commission studySISFAP


ANALYSIS METHCOS

Determine from case studies and otherelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of disbursingNDSL to studentsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andInstitutional characteristics, pro-cedures, and number of disbursementperiods, from SISFAP data


Appropriate audit findings From audi. *ndings, determine thefrequency and magnitude of errorsmade in NDSL disbursements

EFFECTS

a. Administrative Costs(institution)

b. Turnaround Time(Applicant /Family)




5.6. CWS Disbursement Activity

MEASURES

Costs to Institutions ofdisbursing CWS to students

Titre between students'r: -if cation of their awardamount and receipt of theirfunds

Errors committed in the dis-tribution of CWS funds

203

DATA SOURCES


institution case studiesSISFAP

ANALYSIS METHODS

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of disbursingCWS to studentsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics, pro-cedures, and number of disbursementperiods, from SISFA9 data


Appropriate audit findings From audit findings, determine thefrequency and magnitude of errorsmade in CWS disbursements

204

EFFECTS



6.1 SEOG Reconciliation Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government(Federal Government) of reconciling SEOG accounts

(mostly consisting of costsof processing the FISAP)

b. Administrative Costs Costs to int...itutions of(Institution) reconciling their accounts

c. Fund Control Change in institutions'(Institution) accounts caused by reconcil-(Federal Government) ing their accounts

DATA SOURCES


ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the SEOGaccount reconciliation activity

Institution case studies From case studies and other relevantNASFAA study of institu- studies, determine the administrativetion costs costs to institutions of reconcilingNational Commission study their accountsSISFAP Estimate the relationship between


FISAP From the FISAP data, determine thechange in institutions' SEOG author-izations occurring after the programyear ends, caused by the reconcil-iation process

EFFECTS




6.2 CWS Reconciliation Activity

MEASURES

Costs to Federal governmentof reconciling CWS accounts(mostly consisting of costsfor processing the FISAP)

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(institution)

c. Fund Control(Institution)(Federal Government)

reconciling their accounts

Change in institutions'accounts caused by reconcil-ing their accounts

207

DATA SOURCES


ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the CWS accountreconciliation activity

Institution case studies From case studies and other relevantNASFAA study of instaki- studies, determine the administ. Ativetion costs costs to institutions of reconcilingNational Commission study their accountsSISFAP Estimate the relationship between


FISAP From the FISAP data, determine thechange in institutions' CWS author-izations occurring after the programyear ends, caused by the reconciliationprocess

208

EFFECTS


b. Availability of ProgramInformation(Applicant/Family)

c. Applicant Time(Applicant/Family)

d. Availability of NDSLLoan Capital(Institution)(Applicant/Family)



6.3 NDSL Repayment Activity

MEASURES

Costs to institutions ofprocessing students'repayme it activities

NDSL recipients' understand-ing of terms and obligationsof their loans

Amount of time recipientsrequire to submit loan pay-ments

DATA SOURCES




Loan capital made available FISAPby student payments

ANALYSIS METHODS

Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of the NDSLrepayment activityEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics from SISFAP

From case studies, determine thesubjective opinions of knowledgeablepersons on the percentage of NDSLrecipients who do not understandthe conditions in their loans

From case studies, determine sub-jectively from knowledgeable personsthe time NDSL recipients require tosubmit loan payments

From FISAP, determine the amount ofNDSL capital made available fromstudent payments for different insti-tutions

DRAFT



6.3 NMI. Repayment Activity (Continued)


e. Certainty of Funds Percentage of required pay- F1SAP Determine the rate at which students(Institution) ments actually submitted submit required payments, from FISAP

to institutions Estimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics usingFISAP data

212

EFFECTS



6.4 Repayment Deferment Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(Institution) processing deferment

requests

. Applicant Time(Institution)

c. Availability of NDSLLoan Capital(Institution)(Applicant/Family)

213

DATA SOURCES


Time the student spends in Institution case studiesfiling a deferment request

Reduction in available NDSLloan capital because of repay-ment deferments

FISAP

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Determine from case studies and otherrqlevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of processingdeferment requestsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics, from SISFAP

From case studies, estimate the timestudents spend in filing defermentrequests

From FISAP, determine the amountof loans in deferment for differentschoolsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics, usingFISAP data

214

EFFECTS



6.3 Loan Cancellation Activity

MEASURES

a. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(Institution) processing cancellation

requests

Applicant Time(institution)

c. Availability of NDSLLoan Capital(Institution)(Applicant/Family)

d. Administrative Cost(Federal Government)

Time the student spendsin filing a cancellationrequest

Reduction in available NDSLloan capital because of loancancellations

Kt 1 SOURCES

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

In4 ...'.ution case studies Determine from case studies and otherNASFAA study of institu- relevant studies the administrativetion costs costs to institutions of processingNational CoMmission study cancellation requestsSISFAP Estimate the relationship between

the magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics from SISFAP


FISAP

Costs to Federal government interviews with appro-arising from loan cancella- priate ED personnelflung Budget data from relevant

ED branch or branches

From case studies, estimate the timestudents spend In filing cancellationrequests

From FISAP, determine the amountof loans cancelled for differentschoolsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics, usingFISAP data

From interviews and budget docu-ments, determine the costs to processloan cancellation requests

EFFECTS

e. Miscalculation/Error(Federal Government)(Institution)(Applicant/Family)

f. Certainty of Funds(Institution)

217



6.5 Loan Cancellation Activity (Continued)

MEASURES

Errors made in determiningloan cancellations

Time between institutions'requests for payment forcancelled loans and receiptof the fundsDifference between institu-tions' requests and the fundsthey actually receive

DATA SOURCES

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelF1SAP

Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelProgram statistics

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and FISAP, attemptto determine errors made in deter-mination of loan cancellations

From interviews, estimate the timerequired to process loan cancellationrequestsDetermine the difference betweenInstitutions' request for cancellationpayments and the funds they actuallyreceive, using program statistics

218

DRAFT


EFFECTS


6.6 Loan Default Activity

MEASURES DATA SOURCES ANALYSIS METHODS


Costs to institutions ofattempting to collect latepayments and of assigningdefaulted loans to ED


Determine from case studies and otherrelevant studies the administrativecosts to institutions of the loandefault activityEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional procedures and char-acteristics from SISFAP


Time the student spendsin re ling to collection

Institution case studiesInterviews with appro-

From case studies and interviews,estimate the time students spend in

attemst priate ED personnel responding to collection attempts

c. Availability of NDSL Reduction in available NDSL FISAP From FISAP, determine amount ofLoan Capital loan capital because of loan loans defaulted for different schools(Institution)(Applicant/Family)

defaults Estimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andInstitutional characteristics, usingFISAP data

d. Administrative Cost(Federal Government)

Costs to Federal governmentarising from loan defaults


From interviews and budget data,determine the costs to process loan

and from attempting to Budget data from relevant defaults and collect delinquentcollect delinquent loans ED branch or branches accounts

219 220

EFFECTS

e. Miscalculation/Error(Federal Government)(Institution)(Applicant/Family)

f. Certainty of Funds(Institution)



6.6 Loan Default Activity (Continued)

MEASURES

Errors made In determiningloan defaults

Time between institutions'requests for payment fordefaulted loans and receiptof the fundsDifference between institu-tions' requests and the fundsthey actually receive

DATA SOURCES


Interviews with appro-priate ED personnelProgram statistics

DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and program statis-tics, determine errors made in thedetermination of loan defaults

From interviews, estimate the timerequired to process loan defaultrequestsDetermine the difference betweeninstitutions' request for defaultpayments and the funds they actuallyreceive, using program statistics

1.1

S

EFFECTS


b. Administrative Costs(Institution)

c. Fund Control(Institution)(Federal Government)



6.7 NDSL Reconciliation Activity

MEASURES

Costs to Federal governmentof reconciling NDSL accounts(mostly consisting of costsof processing the FISAP)

Costs to institutions ofreconciling their NDSLaccounts

Change In Institutions'accounts caused by reconcil-ing their accounts

223

DATA SOURCES


ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to the NDSLaccount reconciliation activity


FISAP

From case studies and other relevantstudies, determine the administrativecosts to institutions of reconcilingNDSL accountsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics and pro-cedures, from SISFAP

From FISAP data, determine changesin institutions' authorizations occur-ring after the program year ends,caused by the reconciliation process

224

EFFECTS




6.3 Program Review and Audit Activity


DRAFT

ANALYSIS METHODS

Costs to Federal government DCPR Budget From interviews and budget documents,of filing program reviews and Interviews with appro- determine Federal administrativeaudits priate ED personnel costs attributable to the program

review and audit filing activity

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of Institution case studies(Institution) conducting program reviews NASFAA study of institu-

and audits tion costsNational Commission studySISFAP

c. Fund Control Funds recovered from insti- ED statistics on program(Federal Government) tutions because of program reviews(Institution) review and audit findings Institution audit findings

225

From case studies and other relevantstudies, determine the administrativecosts to institutions of conductingprogram reviews and auditsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics andprocedures from SISFAP

From audit fi dings and statistics,determine the funds the Federalgovernment recovers due to institu-tion reviews and audits

22

EFFECTS



6.9 ED Program Reviews Activity


a. Administrative Costs Costs to Federal government DCPR Budget(Federal Government) of conducting program reviews Interviews with appro-

priate ED personnel

b. Administrative Costs Costs to institutions of(Institution) complying with ED program

reviews

DRAFT(

ANALYSIS METHODS

From interviews and budget documents,determine Federal administrativecosts attributable to conductingprogram reviews

Institution case studiesNASFAA stud), of institu-tion costsNational Commission studySISFAP

From case studies and other relevantstudies, determine the administrativecosts to institutions of complyingwith ED program reviewsEstimate the relationship betweenthe magnitude of this effect andinstitutional characteristics andprocedures from SISFAP

c. Fund Control Funds recovered from insti- ED statistics on program From audit findings and statistics,(Federal Government) tutions because of program reviews determine the funds the Federal(Institution) review findings Interviews with appro- government recovers due to reviews

priate ED personnel

228227

APPENDIX A

DRAFT

TABLE OF DELIVERY SYSTEM ACTIVITIES

229

ner.410-

APPENDIX A D RAFT

TARE OF DELIVERY SYSTEM ACIIVNIES

The following chart lists the activities which are part of the delivery subsystem for the three programs, highlighting activities which aresimilar across programs by lining them up horizontally. Asterisks (***) indicate no similar activity In that program component. The two digitnumbers correspond to the logical order of activities vithin each program, so that similar activities iglu programs may not have the same number."Similarity," as used in this chart, refers to activities that are equivalent in terms of the program requirements, the actors involved,and the relevant system steps. The only activities that are comple y tical across all three prograns'are Institutional EligibilityDetermination, and Institutional Certification.

SUBSYSTEM PELL ACTIVITIES

I. Pre - Application

2. Student Application

1.1 Budget Forecasting1.2 Omdget Development1.3 Promelgation of legulations1.4 Forms Development

***

1.5 'Institutional EligibilityDetermination

1.4 Institutional Certification1.7 Computer Systems Revision

******

1.8 Contract Support***

1.9 Disbursement System Planning***

1.10 Institutional Funds Authorizationdr**

******

eee

2.1 Student Application

GSL ACTIVITIES

1.1 Budget Forecasting1.2 Budget Development1.3 Promolgation of Regulations1.4 Forme Development1.5 SA Forms Development1.6 Institutional Eligibility

Determination1.7 Institutional Certification

eee

1.8 Lender Eligibility Determination

eeeeeeore*

eee

***eee*4*

***

mire

2.1 Student Application

CAMPUS-BASED ACTIVITIES

eee

1.1 Budget Development1.2 Promulgation of Regulations1.3 Forms Development

*0*

1.4 Institutional EligibilityDetermination

1.5 Institutional Certification'tee

eee

1.6 Low-Income School List Developmenteee

1.7 State Allocationeee

1.f Institutional Application for Funds*0*

1.9 Initial Institutional Allocation1.10 Appeal of Initial Allaultioe1.11 Final Allocation

2.1 Financial Statement Processing2.2 Student Application

APPENDIX A DRAFT

TABLE (F DELIVERY SYSTEM AcrivniEs (Continued)

SUBSYSTEM PELL ACTIVITIES

3.1

4.1

4.2

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

GSL ACTIVITIES CNIPUS-BASED ACTIVITIES

Student EligibilityDetermination

1**

Optional Validation

3. Student EligibilityDetermination

3.1

3.2

Student EligibilityDetenminatisoValidation

* * *

Student EligibilityDetermination

****a*

3.1

3.2

4.1

4. Student BenefitCalculation

4.1

4.2

Student Award Calculation (ROS)***

***

Student Award Calculation (ADS)***

mk*

Determination of Loan Limits******

Osten, last Rio of Loan Amount

***

issuance of Promissory Notea**

Loan Deductions***

Guarantee Approvalmt.***

Loan Disbursement***

***

Interest and SpecialAllowance Payment

***

Administrative CostAllowance Pound

* *

***

***

Student Award Calculation*a.

***

Establishment of Letter Credit**di

Establishment of Cash Request***

***

***

Award Acceptance***

***

SEOG Disbursement******

NOSL Disbursement***

CW-S Oisbursewnt

5. fund Disbursement

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

Establfshment of Letter Credit***

Establishment of Cash Request***

Disbursement to Institution***

***

Disbursement to Student (ROS)***

***

Disbursement to Student (ADS)***

***

***

* *

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

232233

SUBSYSTEM

6. Account Reconciliation

TABLE OF DELIVERY

PELL ACTIVITIES

6.1 Student Account Reconciliation***

***

6.2 Institutional AccountReconciliation

******

***

***

***************************

6.3 Program Review and Audit******

234

APPENDIX A

SYSTEM ACTIVITIES

GSL ACTIVITIES

***

6.1 Rote Transfer orServicing Contract

***

DRAFT

(Continued)

6.2 Enrollment Status Reporting***

6.3 Entrance Into Grace and /orDeferment Period

***

6.4 Develop meet of Repayment Schedule***

6.5 Loan Repayment***

6.6 Loan Default***

6.7 Loan Write-off***

6.8 GA Reporting***

6.9 Lender Reviewfit*

CAMPUS-BASED ACTIVITIES

***

***

6.1 SEOG Reconciliation***

***

6.2 CM-S Reconciliation***

6.3 NDSL Repayment***

6.4 Repayment Deferral***

6.5 *)SL Cancellation***

6.6 NPSL Default***

6.7 NDSL Reconciliation***

6.8 Program Review and Audit***

6.9 ED Program Review

235

DRAFT

APPENDIX B

DESCRIPTION OF DATA SOURCES

APPENDIX B

DESCRIPTION OF DATA SOURCES

Applicant Based Model

FISAP

High School and Beyond

ISFAMIntegrated Stu-dent Financial Aid Model

NASFAA AdministrativeCost Survey

National Commission Study

Pei! Grant DisbursementData

Pell Grant Quality ControlStudy

DRAFT

Microsimulation model designed to estimate theimpact of changes in the Pell eligibility formula onPell recipients and costs.

Contains the financial application and report of fiscaloperations for the Campus -used program.

1980 study of 58,000 high school seniors and sopho-mores, 1,015 secondary schools, and 7,000 parents.Data on applications for financial aid and knowledgeof financial aid programs.

Microsimulation model designed to simultaneouslypredict recipients and costs for the Pell, GSL andCampus-Based programs.

1975 study conducted by NASFAA of administrativecosts at 512 postsecondary educational institutions.

Study done for the National Commission on StudentFinancial Assistance in 1982 on the "Cost to DeliveryStudent Financial Aid on Campus." Nine institutionswere studied, and detailed information on the cost toadminister financial aid programs at these campuseswas obtained.

Detailed data concerning all financial transactionsoccurring in the Pell program.

Stage One: 1980-81 study of approximately 4,000Pell Grant recipients at 305 institutions. Datacollected on processor errors, student errors, andinstitution errors in the Pell program.

DRAFT

Stage Twos Produced in 1981-82. Merged the Pellstudent validation roster with the Stage One data todetermine final error rates.

Stage Threes Produced In 1982-83. Fall survey of317 institutions and 4,000 students to determineinstitutional compliance with new validationprocedures.

REHAB/MACRO Study "Field Testing of 1982-83 BEOG Application Forms."Study done in 1980-81 to test three alternativeapplications forms with 391 students. Data collectedon time required to complete form and errors madein completing the form.

Report to the Congress "Inconsistencies in Awarding Financial Aid toStudents Under Four Federal Programs." Study bythe Comptroller General in 1979 of distrubution ofPell, GSL, SSIG, and Campus-Based aid at 23institutions, six regional offices, and ten state highereducation authorities.

SISFAP Study of Program Management Procedures in theCampus-Based and Basic Grant Programs 1979-80.

butitution Questionnaire: Study of 172 institutionsand their procedures, costs, etc. in admilsteringfinancial aid.

Financial Aid Office Questionnaire: Study of 172institutions' packaging philosophies.

Student Questionnaire: Representative sample of10,961 students in postsecondary institutions.Demographic and financial aid data collected.

Record Review Forms Data from school records for12,047 financial aid recipients.

238

APPENDIX C

GLOSSARY

239

1

DRAFT

APPENDIX C

GLOSSARY

DRAFT

U.S. Department of Education (ED)

A. Secretary - Office of the Secretary of Education

B. Finance - Office of the Finance- Controller, part of the Office ofManagement

1. EDPMTS - Department of Education Payment System

C. OPBE - Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation

D. OPE - Office of Postsecondary Education

1. EAES - Eligibility and Agency Evaluation Staffa. CEU - College Eligibility Unitb. CoSEU - Occupational School Eligibility Unit

2. OSFA - Office of Student Financial Assistance

II. Office of Student Financial Assistance (OSFA)

A. DPPD - Division of Policy and Program Development

B. DCPR - Division of Certification and Program Review

1. ILCB - Institution and Lender Certification Brancha. LRS - Lender Review Section

C. DPO - Division of Program Operations

1. GSL Branch - Guaranteed Student Loan Brancha. TBS - Transaction and Billing Sectionb. CCS - Claims and Collections Section

2. EDFMIS - Department of Education Financial Management Infor-mation System

3. PIMS - Program Information and Monitoring System

D. DSDD - Division of Systems Design and Development

III. Other Federal Agencies and Offices

A. AMPS - Assistance, Management, and Procurement Services

B. FEDAC - Federal Education Data Acquisition Services

C. GPO - Government Printing Office

C-1240

DRAFT

D. OMB - Office of Management and Budget, in the Executive Office of therreladent

E. SLMA, - Student Loan Marketing Association (a federally initiatedprivate corporation; also known as "Sallie Mae")

F. Treasury - Treasury Department

IV. Agencies and Offices

A. BCS - Boeing Computer Services (processor/contractor)

B. GA - State guarantee agencies

C. Institution - a postsecondary institution eligible to administer Title IVprograms

D. MDE Multiple Data Entry (processors/contractors for processingstudent applications):

o ACT - American College Testingo CSS - College Scholarship Se:Niceo PREAA - Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Authorityo SAAC - Student Aid Application of California

V. Miscellaneous Acronyms

A. ACA Administrative Costs Allowance

B. ADS - Alternate Disbursement System (Pell Grants)

C. AGI - Adjusted Gross Income

D. CAN - Common Accountipg Number

E. CW -S - College Work-Study program

F. EFC - Expected Family Contribution

G. FAA - Financial Aid Administrator

H. GSL - Guaranteed Student Loan program

I. LTS - Loan Transaction Statement

J. NDSL - National Direct Student Loan

K. NPRM - Notice of proposed rulemaking

L. RDS - Regular Disbursement System

M. SAI - Student Aid Index

N. SAR - Student Aid ReportC-2

241

DRAFT0. Kt - School Confirmation Report

P. stog - Supplementary Educational Opportunity Grant

Q. SEP - Statement of Educational Purpose

R. SFA - Student Financial Assistance

wash 'ton, dc. - ericschematic representation of how the specification document, general...

Documents